KEY SUCCESS FACTORS FOR DISASTER RESILIENT CITY GOVERNANCE
Daniel Faskal
Arizona State University
Course
Professor Dahlya
March, 2024
Week 2
Introduction
Currently, more than half of the world's population lives in cities and towns. UNESCAP
(2013) states that the world's urban population is expected to grow by 1.84% per year
between 2015 and 2020; 1.63% per year between 2020 and 2025; and 1.44% per year
between 2025 and 2030. This population will continue to increase until 70% of the world's
population will be concentrated in urban areas (Garcia, 2014). The UN estimates that four out
of five people will be living in cities by mid-century The Asian continent is likely to have
exponential urban population growth rates in the coming years.
Unprecedented urbanization trends carry the potential to transform the world's cities into
service hubs capable of promising better social and economic opportunities. However, if not
managed and planned properly, it can put enormous pressure on existing urban systems.
Collectively, the world's cities are responsible for 70% of global GDP, greenhouse gas
emissions, and waste and more than 60% of global energy consumption. This position has
had an impact on accelerating the rate of global climate change. Unchecked climate change
increases the frequency and intensity of natural disasters and exponentially increases the
vulnerability of urban areas through economic, physical and social disruption.
Among a number of urban natural disasters, flooding is the most frequent type of disaster
(Park and Lee, 2019). In the period 1998 to 2008, there were more than 2900 flood disasters
worldwide (Adhikari, et al., 2010). It is estimated that urban zones affected by flooding will
increase 2.7 times by 2030 (Güneralp, 2015). Globally, studies show an increase in the
frequency and magnitude of flooding due to changes in precipitation patterns resulting from
climate change and accelerated urban expansion (Eissa, 2011; Broekx, 2011).
In United States itself, the problem of disasters is one of the special concerns for the
government, both central and local. United States position in the Pacific Ring of Fire (an area
of high tectonic activity) means that it faces constant risks from volcanic eruptions,
earthquakes, floods and tsunamis. Over the past 30 years, there have been an average of 289
significant natural disasters per year with an average annual death toll of around 8,000 (IFRC,
2019). Red Cross statistics show that 62% of the population in United States live in disaster-
prone areas (IFRC, 2019). As a tropical country with high rainfall intensity, flooding is an
annual disaster threat that United States must face, especially in urban areas. Based on DIBI
BNPB data (2020), the number of flood disaster events in United States has increased
significantly from 1815. Flood events in United States until 2020 have reached 9225 events
and are the highest disaster events in United States. The condition of urban vulnerability to
flood disasters increases every year in line with urban expansion and urban population
growth every year.
Within the framework of these issues, urban disaster management must be considered in
a long-term perspective because the impacts of climate change are unpredictable and
complex, especially on increasing regional resilience. Faced with such challenges, several
cities in the world have developed disaster resilient city governance and have successfully
entered the category of disaster resilient cities. This paper aims to analyze the determinants of
successful governance of disaster-resilient cities in the world. The long-term objective of this
research is to provide recommendations related to disaster-resilient city governance that can
be adopted by cities in United States.
Discussion
Disaster Resilient Governance
By definition, resilience can be defined as "the ability of a system, community or society
exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate and recover from the effects of hazards
quickly and efficiently by preserving and restoring essential basic structures" (UNISDR,
2011; Danar, 2014). In this perspective, a resilient city is one that can adapt and or absorb
disturbances, changes, by reorganizing and still be able to maintain the same basic structure
and provide the same services. In line with the concept of disaster resilience, the concept of
disaster risk reduction (DRR) becomes one of the important points to guide disaster resilient
governance. Disaster Risk Reduction, hereafter referred to as DRR, is "the concept and
practice of reducing disaster risk through systematic efforts to analyze and reduce the factors
that cause disasters" (UNISDR, 2010; Danar, 2020). Examples of DRR include reducing
exposure to hazards, reducing vulnerability of people and property, proper management of
land and environment, and improving preparedness and early warning for disasters. DRR
encompasses disciplines such as disaster management, disaster mitigation and disaster
preparedness. However, it should also be emphasized that DRR is also part of sustainable
development. To ensure the sustainability of sustainable development activities, efforts to
reduce disaster risks are necessary.
Addressing disaster risk in the context of resilience It encourages urban planners to look at
the many impacts of disasters and seek to build the long-term capacity of communities to
adapt and cope with uncertain risks (ADB, 2006). The goal is for communities to be prepared
for disaster conditions. The World Bank (2013) categorizes four components that are
considered to help improve disaster resilience: infrastructure resilience, institutional
resilience, economic resilience and social resilience.
Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure resilience refers to reducing the vulnerability of structures such as
buildings and transportation systems. Infrastructure resilience also refers to protective
capacities such as maintenance facilities health, vulnerability of buildings to hazards, critical
infrastructure, availability of roads for evacuation, post-disaster supply lines and community
capacity for response and recovery. One country that is trying to strengthen infrastructure
resilience in disaster management is the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands is one of the
areas that is often visited by Atlantic hurricanes. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan, the worst storm in
86 years, hit the largest island, Grand Cayman and damaged 90% of the buildings (Young,
2004). Electricity, water and communications were disrupted for months in some areas of the
Cayman Islands. The island then began the process of rebuilding on a large scale, and within
a national strategic framework for disaster risk reduction. Among other efforts, a 124-bed
hospital was built to Category 5 hurricane standards. This health facility remained functional
during and after Hurricane Ivan, alongside efforts to provide shelter for more than 1,000
people (CY Gov, 2005).
Institutional Resilience
Institutional resilience refers to the systems, governmental and non-governmental that
manage a community. Institutions, whether built to address disaster risk or not, can influence
the vulnerability of different community groups through several pathways and conditions
(Lebel et al., 2006). In the conceptualization of disaster risk, the influence of institutionalized
capacities and practices on disaster risk management is also influenced by ecological and
social resilience and the attributes of the disaster event itself.
In disaster risk management, the institutional and political development context is geared
towards answering five questions: when do disasters occur; who and what is at risk; who is
responsible; how does disaster risk change; and how to evaluate (IFA, 2006). Examples of
institutional resilience efforts have been made by Thailand and El Savador. Thailand through
the Baan Mankong program attempted to improve the condition of informal settlements by
launching an initiative to upgrade and improve the condition of slums and squatter
settlements. Thailand's slum upgrading and improvement program adopts a community-based
approach to solving the problems of unsafe housing and poor living conditions, and puts
residents at the heart of the process (Archer, 2012). The Baan Mankong program channels
funds in the form of infrastructure subsidies and housing loans directly to low-income
communities in informal settlements. The funding comes almost entirely from domestic
resources - a combination of national government, local government and community
contributions. Under this national program, people in illegal settlements can obtain legal land
tenure through various means such as direct purchase from the landowner or moving to
another location provided by the government.
Another example of efforts to improve institutional resilience is that of Santa Tecla.
Santa Tecla is part of the metropolitan area of El Salvador's capital, San Salvador. Santa
Tecla experienced two earthquakes in 2001. In just five seconds, landslides caused more than
700 deaths, displaced 20% of the city's land, and severely damaged 38% of the infrastructure.
The government of Santa Tecla thought deeply about what could be done to transform the
city and make it disaster-proof. The Santa Tecla government then realized the need to start
designing urban land management in a more responsible and sustainable manner. In this
regard, the government recognized the need for citizens to understand the importance of what
the government was doing or the small changes that would occur by encouraging
participation in the 'Mesas de Ciudadanos' (citizens' groups) program, which brings together
different stakeholder organizations in periodic discussions and decision-making.
Economic Resilience
Economic resilience refers to the economic diversity of communities such as the type of
employment, number of businesses, and their ability to function normally after a disaster.
Economic resilience in the concept of disaster resilience contains four definitions, namely:
(a) Robustness, the ability to avoid direct and indirect economic losses; (b) Redundancy, the
level of untapped or excess economic capacity; (c) Resourcefulness - stabilization measures;
and (d) Rapidity - the speed of return to pre-disaster conditions (Bruneau et al., 2003).
Australia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and China have all made efforts to improve
economic resilience after disasters. The city of Cairns, Australia sets up a regular budget
intended for disaster preparedness and response. The city has an annual operating budget that
includes funding for disaster management units, coordination centers, volunteer services and
community awareness programs. In recent years, its annual budget includes allocations for
the construction of buildings, emergency response vehicles and equipment, disaster risk
assessment software, flood warning network upgrades and drainage and flood mitigation
investments. These are the city's commitment to disaster risk reduction. These efforts are
complemented by investments and partnerships at the national level and also involve
professionals in the built environment, the private sector and academic institutions. Similar to
Australia, three other countries - the Philippines, China and Sri Lanka - also have policies to
support investment in disaster risk reduction. Since 2001, cities in the Philippines have been
required to allocate 5% of their local government budgets to disaster funds. Under the
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010; cities in the Philippines can spend
70% of this allocation on preparedness and relief/reserve equipment. Sri Lanka, through the
Ministry of Disaster Management announced that in 2011 the government allocated Rs. 8
billion for flood control programs in the capital, Colombo, while launching a safe urban
planning program to minimize disasters as part of the Resilient Cities Campaign. The funds
were used to clean canals, reconstruct drainage systems, and for other measures to prevent
flooding in Colombo. In China, provincial governors of two disaster-prone Chinese provinces
(Sichuan and Yunnan) committed additional resources to disaster reduction. The Sichuan
Provincial Government invested 2 billion Yuan to improve the local geological disaster
prevention system. The Yunnan Provincial Government, meanwhile, committed to invest at
least 10 billion yuan over ten years in local disaster prevention and assessment systems.
Social Resilience
Social resilience refers to the demographic profile of a community by gender, age,
ethnicity, socioeconomic status and other groupings as well as its social capital profile.
Although difficult to measure, social capital refers to the sense (values, norms and culture) of
community, the ability of groups of citizens to adapt and the sense of attachment to a place.
Strengthening social resilience in disaster management has been applied by Japan, Nepal and
China.
Japan has a "watch and learn" pattern where children and communities learn what they
call Mountain and City Risk as early as possible. Starting at the kindergarten level, Japanese
schools implement education on how to detect and react in disaster situations, conduct regular
disaster response drills and use "disaster watch". This time-consuming investment saved
many lives in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. One of the cities that implemented
this program is Saijo City. Saijo City is one of the cities with an old population in Japan. This
old population is a major problem in disaster response in Saijo City. To be more disaster
resilient, Saijo City needs the energy of young people who are not many. Therefore, Saijo
City implemented a disaster risk awareness program targeting school children. For 12 years,
the Saijo City government has focused on projects to improve the quality of the city's
physical environment, and "mountain and city observation" projects for children. Young
residents meet with the elderly to learn together about the risks faced by Saijo City and to
draw lessons from the 2004 typhoon disaster. Saijo City has developed a 'mountain and city
watching' handbook and established a teachers' association for disaster education and a
children's club for disaster prevention. On top of all this, a national disaster safety day was
implemented. Japan celebrates Disaster Prevention Day every year on September 1, the
anniversary of the great Kanto earthquake of 1923, and March 11, the anniversary of the
Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami.
Apart from Japan, Nepal and China are countries that also observe disaster days. In
Nepal, January 15 marks the anniversary of the great Nepal earthquake of 1934. In
Kathmandu, political leaders and prominent figures commemorated the event with activities
such as street parades, shaking table demonstrations, exhibitions on disaster-resistant
construction, street plays, interactive seminars, poster, art and other competitions, and
presentations for children. An earthquake simulation exercise was the highlight of the
commemorative event, with wide public participation and coverage by local media. China has
designated May 12 as National Disaster Safety Day, to commemorate the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake.
Disaster risk reduction and disaster resilience are integral parts of environmental,
economic, social and political sustainable development (ICLEI, 2010). To improve
governance towards resilience, there are five things that need to be considered, which include
(a) Understanding for whom the government regulates or manages;
(b) Use of a territorial approach in governance;
(c) Use of appropriate tools or methods for efficient land management; (d) Use of ICT and e-
governance; and (5) Implementation of innovative governance.
Keys to Successful Disaster Resilient City Governance
Cities that have been able to strengthen their resilience to disasters have provided some
of the following learning about how to manage cities to become disaster resilient. There are at
least ten key factors that determine whether a city becomes disaster resilient, as follows:
Having a Disaster Resilience Organization
Organizations that support the resilience of cities to disasters are needed to contribute to
the goal of sustainable urban development, a holistic approach in understanding potential
threats, and disaster risk governance that should be adopted. In this context, it is important to
involve decision-makers such as local governments, various officials and departments,
academia, business groups, and communities. Participation of these key groups and actors in
planning, implementation and monitoring, and effective organizational structures are
prerequisites for sound decision-making and practice of disaster risk reduction actions. This
will foster collaboration and partnership among all stakeholders for disaster risk prevention,
mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation. Recognizing that the
appropriate organizational structure will vary within and between countries, there are at least
three things that need to be considered, namely as follows:
Build and strengthen institutional capacity and coordination at the local level;
Building alliances and/or networks with all relevant stakeholder groups; and
Establish legislative frameworks and action mechanisms to achieve resilience.
Identify, Understand, and Utilize Current and Future Risk Scenarios
It is based on the premise that disaster risk management needs to be based on an
understanding of disaster risk scenarios across all dimensions of hazard characteristics, risk
exposure, capacity and vulnerability. Analysis and measurement of risk scenarios are
essential for informed decision-making, prioritizing programs or projects, and planning for
disaster risk reduction measures (prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response). The
need for both can be eliminated if local governments have a clear understanding of the risks
they face and fully discuss with the public and other stakeholders about risk scenarios and the
implementation of meaningful disaster risk reduction measures. There are two things that can
be done at this point, which are as follows:
Identify the most likely and most severe scenarios (worst case); and
Utilize information and measurement results from risk scenarios to make development
decisions by involving stakeholders.
Strengthening Financial Capacity for Disaster Resilience
Strengthening financial capacity can be done by including specific resources and specific
mechanisms that can be used to increase resilience. Financial resources can come from
municipal revenues, local or sectoral national distributions and allocations, public-private
partnerships and technical cooperation, as well as civil society and external organizations.
Financial mechanisms can include resilience financing and resilience self-help embedded in
broader development planning and spending. There are at least three ways in which efforts
can be made to increase awareness and financial capacity to build disaster resilient cities, as
follows:
Recognize the opportunity that building resilience to disasters equates to contributing to a
sound economic strategy;
Ensure a budget for resilience; and
Disseminate risk information for development decisions.
Development of Disaster Resilient City Design
Not all hazards or potential disasters can cause a disaster. A disaster occurs when a
potential disaster results in devastation that a community is unable to cope with on its own
without assistance from others. Therefore, preventive measures can help build better
resilience capacity, avoid and/or minimize disruption and destruction of networks and
infrastructure, which can lead to severe social and economic consequences. In addition,
integrating resilience concepts into infrastructure and socio-economic planning and
development will protect the city's development investments. In the context of developing
disaster-resilient urban design, there are several things that need to be considered and done,
namely as follows:
Place urban planning and land use management at the core of urban resilience through
land zoning and disaster-aware planning;
Mapping systemic and specific vulnerabilities; and
Mainstream resilience into ongoing updates of city master plans and sectoral strategies.
Protecting Natural Buffers to Improve Ecosystem Functions
Ecosystems provide essential services for disaster risk reduction as protection and
barriers against disaster threats and hazards. Ecosystems are central to disaster mitigation by
offering, for example, regulation against flooding and protecting steep slopes from potential
landslides. Ecosystems also increase the resilience of communities to withstand, cope with
and recover from disasters by providing multiple benefits such as food, firewood, clean water
and the like. Degraded ecosystems will not be able to provide such mitigation benefits and
resources, which in turn significantly increases community vulnerability. The process of
urban expansion changes the ecosystem fabric and often generates new risks and new
vulnerabilities. Recognizing the economic value and multiple benefits of healthy ecosystems
that act as natural buffers is important to reduce risks and contribute to the resilience and
sustainability of cities. Relevant ecosystem services may include, but are not limited to: water
retention or water infiltration; afforestation; urban vegetation; floodplains; mangroves, and
other coastal vegetation. Some things that need to be considered in efforts to increase
resilience through ecosystems are as follows:
Raising awareness of the impact of change environmental and ecosystem degradation on
disaster risk by recognizing the value and benefits of ecosystem services for disaster risk
prevention, protecting and or enhancing them as part of disaster risk reduction strategies
for the city;
Promote management of critical ecosystems to strengthen resilience to disasters;
Strengthen existing ecosystem management based on risk scenario assessments; and
Anticipate changes from climate trends, urbanization and make plans that allow
ecosystem services to remain.
Strengthening Institutional Capacity
Understanding the city's institutional background on past efforts towards risk reduction
or management and resilience building can help detect current gaps in local capacity to
coordinate and take action towards disaster prevention, mitigation, response and recovery.
Another advantage is to be able to identify the best and most appropriate approach effective to
strengthen relevant institutions in managing disaster risk. The institutions in question are the
central government and local governments. Other groups also have a role in disaster risk
management by complementing and supporting government measures. These groups include
the private sector that provides public services according to local needs, such as telephone,
water, energy, and health, as well as volunteer capacity or equipment in the event of a
disaster; owners and operators of industrial facilities; building owners (individuals or
companies); NGOs; professionals and academics, employers and labor organizations; and
cultural institutions and civil society organizations. Some things to note, are as follows:
Identifying the specific nature of each disaster risk and mapping the characteristics and
support needs of each institution. This requires reaching a common understanding of the
roles and responsibilities of each;
Building local capacity and strengthening participation in disaster management and
resilience building; and
Ensure consistency of disaster risk data and information among stakeholders. This can be
done by creating and implementing an information and data framework for resilience and
disaster risk reduction efforts.
Identifying, Understanding and Strengthening Social Capacity
Communities should take part in collective efforts to create disaster-resilient cities
through education, training and disaster awareness programs. All components of the
community must understand the hazards and risks they face, so that they can prepare and take
steps to cope with potential disasters. Education and capacity building programs are also key
to mobilizing citizen and community participation in disaster management strategies, such as
improving community preparedness and response to local early warnings. Some things that
need to be considered in improving community capacity to ensure disaster resilience are as
follows:
Establish a comprehensive response unit at the local level;
Develop risk reduction and resilience information;
Integrate disaster risk reduction and resilience into formal education and other training
programs;
Improving public education and awareness through information dissemination through the
business sector and media; and
Establish and maintain open access to data for disaster preparedness and response.
Improving Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure is an important part of urban governance and especially in relation to
emergency response conditions. Therefore, the government needs to pay special attention to
safety needs in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure so that it can continue to be
operational during emergencies. The main infrastructure required for city operations such as
transportation (roads, railways, airports and other ports), vehicle fuel supply lines,
telecommunications systems, utility systems, hospitals and health facilities, educational
institutions and school facilities, food supply chains, police and fire services, and so on. Some
things to note are as follows:
Measurement of critical infrastructure capacity and adequacy;
Strengthening vulnerable infrastructure (infrastructure replacement and procurement);
Build alliances with the private sector to leverage technical and financial resources and
ensure that private investments follow environmental and risk reduction norms; and
Recognize the need for service relevance and operational priorities during and after a
disaster.
Ensuring the Effectiveness of Disaster Response
Well-developed preparedness and response plans can not only save lives and property,
but also contribute to resilience and post-disaster recovery by reducing disaster impacts.
Preparedness efforts, early warning systems and communication systems will help ensure that
cities, communities and individuals threatened by hazards can act in sufficient time and
appropriately to reduce injuries, loss of life and damage to property or the environment.
Sustainability can be achieved if the community itself and local authorities understand the
importance and need for emergency preparedness and response at the local level. Some things
to consider are as follows:
Create and improve preparedness plans, including training;
Strengthening early warning systems; and
Improve the city's emergency response services.
Accelerate City Recovery and Build Back Better
Cities are built by multiple entities over decades or centuries, and are therefore very
difficult to rebuild in a short period of time. Until recently, there was a priority debate
between the need to rebuild quickly and rebuild safely and sustainably. A planned and
participatory recovery and reconstruction process will help the city to be able to reactivate
city life as soon as possible, restoring and rebuilding damaged infrastructure and restoring the
city's economy, empowering its citizens to rebuild their lives, homes and livelihoods.
Reconstruction should start as soon as possible, even before a potential disaster becomes a
disaster. Essentially, cities can foresee needs, establish operational mechanisms and assign
resources required as preparation and mitigation efforts, if supported by capable systems.
Recovery and rehabilitation can be planned long before a disaster occurs. Leadership,
coordination and funding are important parts of the effort. Some things to consider are as
follows:
Recovery must be addressed in multiple aspects and dimensions;
Include affected populations in efforts to define needs and recovery plans;
Recovery is an opportunity to build back better and enhance development;
Seeking resources, strengthening alliances and ensuring sustainability; and
Integrate disaster risk reduction in all investment decisions for recovery and
reconstruction.
Challenges in managing Disaster Resilient Cities
GSDRC (2014) outlines some of the challenges of managing disaster resilient cities in
terms of adaptive capacity, poverty and inequality, political economy, integration of disaster
resilience in aid operations and policies, disaster resilience analysis and measurement,
environmental support and government action, and financial conditions.
Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity relates to the capacity of systems, institutions, people and other
organisms to be able to adjust to potential damage, take benefit from opportunities or respond
to possible consequences (IPCC, 2014). Adaptive capacity includes prevention strategies,
which involve making choices to avoid events, and impact minimization strategies. Existing
research has highlighted that adaptive capacities are interrelated, and no single factor can
explain the level of disaster resilience in any context. For example, the role of indigenous
knowledge must be understood as closely linked to socio-economic variables that support or
undermine adaptation efforts.
Poverty and Inequality Conditions
The capacity of individuals, families or communities to prepare for, withstand and
respond to hazards or crises is enabled and constrained by social status, income and ethnicity
(Bosher et al., 2007). There is a common understanding that it is the poor who will suffer the
greatest losses from disasters (Oxfam, 2013; Shepherd et al., 2013). In 2008, the United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) noted that 94% of all people killed by
disasters between 1975-2000 were from low- or lower-middle-income groups (UNISDR,
2008). Disasters deprive people of assets and livelihoods, reproducing poverty and inequality
(UNISDR, 2008; Shepherd et al., 2013). Therefore, good disaster risk management can
reduce the impact of disasters, especially on the lower middle class (Shepherd et al., 2013).
Research in eight villages in coastal Andhra Pradesh in southern India concluded that
caste is a key factor determining access to resources essential to aid recovery from disasters
(Bosher et al., 2007). In this case, 'lower' castes lacked access to the assets, public facilities
and political networks necessary to aid their recovery. Gender is a tangible form of inequality
that shapes vulnerability to disasters (Ganapati, 2012, 2013; OCHA, 2012; Oxfam UK, 2012;
Turnbull et al., 2013). For women and girls, injustices in everyday life, not just during
disasters, tend to create greater risk, reduce life chances, and deepen material and non-
material losses (Bradshaw & Fordham, 2013). In addition, there is also great concern
expressed in the literature about the vulnerability of other high-risk populations: children, the
elderly, and people with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Such groups can be disadvantaged
and discriminated against, and can face a range of inequalities that magnify their vulnerability
risk (Peek et al., 2010). On the one hand, these disadvantaged groups are usually more
exposed and vulnerable to hazards. However, they can also contribute to building disaster
resilience (Oliver-Smith et al., 2012; Oxfam, 2013; Turnbull et al., 2013).
Political Economy
A number of aspects of a country's political economy can affect disaster resilience. One
of these is regulations relating to urban building codes and land use, poor regulations, or poor
enforcement of regulations, can create economic and social conditions that put vulnerable
groups at greater risk and that are difficult to remedy (GFDRR, 2010; Turnbull et al., 2013;
Wilkinson, 2012a). Another important issue, documented in several case studies, is how
corruption and patronage systems limit adaptive capacity and weaken disaster resilience. One
study in Bangladesh found that pre- and post-disaster interventions were co-opted and used to
increase the assets of political elites to the detriment of low-income groups (Mahmud &
Prowse, 2012). In many developing countries, public policy and political commitment to
disaster resilience is suboptimal. In a meta-review of evidence, Wilkinson (2012a) attributes
this to a lack of political interest and will, unfavorable economic and political incentives,
information gaps, and coordination problems.
Integration of Disaster Resilience in Aid Operation and Policy
In many cases, disaster resilience efforts are hampered by political economy, power and
inequality, including gender inequality (OCHA, 2012; Oxfam, 2013; UNISDR, 2011).
Therefore, Oxfam (2013) recommends a lens that focuses on politics and equality to aid
resilience, which focuses on several aspects including the following:
Social insurance and other programs that target disadvantaged groups who need greater
support and services to have equal opportunities;
Build pro-poor institutions at all levels, which represent and respond to the needs and
capacities of the most vulnerable;
Ensure rights and accountability, and the ability of women and men to assert their rights
and hold power holders accountable through participation in decision-making at all levels;
and
Provide free essential basic services for health and education, and social protection
Disaster Resilience Analysis and Measurement
Several organizations have developed guidelines for measuring disaster resilience. One
widely used guideline is the resilience risk framework, which uses the five dimensions of
resilience identified in the Hyogo Framework for Action (Twigg, 2009). These five
dimensions include governance, risk assessment, knowledge and education, risk management
and vulnerability reduction, and disaster preparedness and response. Other organizations'
frameworks measure different dimensions of resilience. Oxfam, for example, recently
developed a multi-dimensional framework that incorporates livelihoods, innovation capacity,
access to emergency resources, integrity of the natural environment, and social and
institutional capacity (Hughes et al., 2013).
Environmental Support and Government Action
In this context there are three things that need attention, namely: multi-level and multi-
stakeholder working in an enabling environment, supportive actions from the national
government, and supportive actions from local governments.
Multi-level and multi-stakeholder working in an enabling environment
Group interventions and participation in disaster risk reduction at different scales and levels
of action are critical. The policy and institutional environment that supports long-term
disaster resilience should also involve governments supporting the capacity of individuals,
civil society, the private sector and at-risk populations to manage and adapt to risk. Based on
desk and field research in disaster-prone areas in three countries, Reaching Resilience (n.d.)
found that a multi-stakeholder, multi-level approach is effective when integrating disaster risk
reduction, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction in its intervention efforts, as
follows:
Understand and create dialog about people at risk mapping;
Explore appropriate institutional and governance contexts;
Analyzing strengths and relationships between stakeholders;
Supportive actions from local government
Turnbull et al. (2013) provide detailed guidance on risk governance at the local level. To
strengthen risk prevention, efforts are needed to improve local stakeholders' access to public
information, hazard mapping, use of forecasting and early warning systems. Strategies for
dealing with high-impact disasters include the development of disaster management
committees, emergency services, emergency plans and emergency funds, as well as social
insurance mechanisms. Strategies to protect assets and services include developing disaster-
resistant building techniques for houses, schools and hospitals, and investing in water and
sanitation technologies for disaster risk reduction.
Financial Condition
Efforts to improve disaster resilience are typically characterized by shortcomings in
terms of funding, cost and effectiveness of interventions for resilience that are still limited,
yet the need is growing (DFID, 2011; GFDRR, 2010). Multi-year funding for disaster
resilience is often recommended, especially for protracted crises (Frankenberger et al., 2012).
Despite these challenges, several studies have shown that building disaster resilience is more
cost-effective than a late response (Cabot Venton et al., 2013; GFDRR, 2010). The cost-
effectiveness of prevention can essentially be improved through efforts, not least on open
access to information about hazards or risk exposure, provision of disaster infrastructure and
services, other disaster investments, and stakeholder engagement in disaster risk
management.
Conclusion
Ensuring a city has disaster-resilient urban governance is not an easy task. There are
many factors that need to be considered and are interrelated with each other. Disaster resilient
city governance is strongly influenced by infrastructure resilience, institutional resilience,
economic resilience and social resilience. These four things must be managed properly and
continuously in order to create a disaster resilient city. From the ten key success factors of
disaster resilient governance that have been presented in the discussion session, it can be
concluded that awareness of the importance of disaster mitigation is the initial guide to the
success of disaster resilient city governance. Besides the urgency of the existence of
leadership, communication, coordination, participation and information disclosure are also
considered as the backbone for the sustainability of disaster resilient governance.
Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure resilience refers to reducing the vulnerability of structures such as
buildings and transportation systems. Infrastructure resilience also refers to protective
capacities such as maintenance facilities health, vulnerability of buildings to hazards, critical
infrastructure, availability of roads for evacuation, post-disaster supply lines and community
capacity for response and recovery. One country that is trying to strengthen infrastructure
resilience in disaster management is the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands is one of the
areas that is often visited by Atlantic hurricanes. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan, the worst storm in
86 years, hit the largest island, Grand Cayman and damaged 90% of the buildings (Young,
2004). Electricity, water and communications were disrupted for months in some areas of the
Cayman Islands. The island then began the process of rebuilding on a large scale, and within
a national strategic framework for disaster risk reduction. Among other efforts, a 124-bed
hospital was built to Category 5 hurricane standards. This health facility remained functional
during and after Hurricane Ivan, alongside efforts to provide shelter for more than 1,000
people (CY Gov, 2005).
Institutional Resilience
Institutional resilience refers to the systems, governmental and non-governmental that
manage a community. Institutions, whether built to address disaster risk or not, can influence
the vulnerability of different community groups through several pathways and conditions
(Lebel et al., 2006). In the conceptualization of disaster risk, the influence of institutionalized
capacities and practices on disaster risk management is also influenced by ecological and
social resilience and the attributes of the disaster event itself.
In disaster risk management, the institutional and political development context is geared
towards answering five questions: when do disasters occur; who and what is at risk; who is
responsible; how does disaster risk change; and how to evaluate (IFA, 2006). Examples of
institutional resilience efforts have been made by Thailand and El Savador. Thailand through
the Baan Mankong program attempted to improve the condition of informal settlements by
launching an initiative to upgrade and improve the condition of slums and squatter
settlements. Thailand's slum upgrading and improvement program adopts a community-based
approach to solving the problems of unsafe housing and poor living conditions, and puts
residents at the heart of the process (Archer, 2012). The Baan Mankong program channels
funds in the form of infrastructure subsidies and housing loans directly to low-income
communities in informal settlements. The funding comes almost entirely from domestic
resources - a combination of national government, local government and community
contributions. Under this national program, people in illegal settlements can obtain legal land
tenure through various means such as direct purchase from the landowner or moving to
another location provided by the government.
Another example of efforts to improve institutional resilience is that of Santa Tecla.
Santa Tecla is part of the metropolitan area of El Salvador's capital, San Salvador. Santa
Tecla experienced two earthquakes in 2001. In just five seconds, landslides caused more than
700 deaths, displaced 20% of the city's land, and severely damaged 38% of the infrastructure.
The government of Santa Tecla thought deeply about what could be done to transform the
city and make it disaster-proof. The Santa Tecla government then realized the need to start
designing urban land management in a more responsible and sustainable manner. In this
regard, the government recognized the need for citizens to understand the importance of what
the government was doing or the small changes that would occur by encouraging
participation in the 'Mesas de Ciudadanos' (citizens' groups) program, which brings together
different stakeholder organizations in periodic discussions and decision-making.
Economic Resilience
Economic resilience refers to the economic diversity of communities such as the type of
employment, number of businesses, and their ability to function normally after a disaster.
Economic resilience in the concept of disaster resilience contains four definitions, namely:
(a) Robustness, the ability to avoid direct and indirect economic losses; (b) Redundancy, the
level of untapped or excess economic capacity; (c) Resourcefulness - stabilization measures;
and (d) Rapidity - the speed of return to pre-disaster conditions (Bruneau et al., 2003).
Australia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and China have all made efforts to improve
economic resilience after disasters. The city of Cairns, Australia sets up a regular budget
intended for disaster preparedness and response. The city has an annual operating budget that
includes funding for disaster management units, coordination centers, volunteer services and
community awareness programs. In recent years, its annual budget includes allocations for
the construction of buildings, emergency response vehicles and equipment, disaster risk
assessment software, flood warning network upgrades and drainage and flood mitigation
investments. These are the city's commitment to disaster risk reduction. These efforts are
complemented by investments and partnerships at the national level and also involve
professionals in the built environment, the private sector and academic institutions. Similar to
Australia, three other countries - the Philippines, China and Sri Lanka - also have policies to
support investment in disaster risk reduction. Since 2001, cities in the Philippines have been
required to allocate 5% of their local government budgets to disaster funds. Under the
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010; cities in the Philippines can spend
70% of this allocation on preparedness and relief/reserve equipment. Sri Lanka, through the
Ministry of Disaster Management announced that in 2011 the government allocated Rs. 8
billion for flood control programs in the capital, Colombo, while launching a safe urban
planning program to minimize disasters as part of the Resilient Cities Campaign. The funds
were used to clean canals, reconstruct drainage systems, and for other measures to prevent
flooding in Colombo. In China, provincial governors of two disaster-prone Chinese provinces
(Sichuan and Yunnan) committed additional resources to disaster reduction. The Sichuan
Provincial Government invested 2 billion Yuan to improve the local geological disaster
prevention system. The Yunnan Provincial Government, meanwhile, committed to invest at
least 10 billion yuan over ten years in local disaster prevention and assessment systems.
Social Resilience
Social resilience refers to the demographic profile of a community by gender, age,
ethnicity, socioeconomic status and other groupings as well as its social capital profile.
Although difficult to measure, social capital refers to the sense (values, norms and culture) of
community, the ability of groups of citizens to adapt and the sense of attachment to a place.
Strengthening social resilience in disaster management has been applied by Japan, Nepal and
China.
Japan has a "watch and learn" pattern where children and communities learn what they
call Mountain and City Risk as early as possible. Starting at the kindergarten level, Japanese
schools implement education on how to detect and react in disaster situations, conduct regular
disaster response drills and use "disaster watch". This time-consuming investment saved
many lives in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. One of the cities that implemented
this program is Saijo City. Saijo City is one of the cities with an old population in Japan. This
old population is a major problem in disaster response in Saijo City. To be more disaster
resilient, Saijo City needs the energy of young people who are not many. Therefore, Saijo
City implemented a disaster risk awareness program targeting school children. For 12 years,
the Saijo City government has focused on projects to improve the quality of the city's
physical environment, and "mountain and city observation" projects for children. Young
residents meet with the elderly to learn together about the risks faced by Saijo City and to
draw lessons from the 2004 typhoon disaster. Saijo City has developed a 'mountain and city
watching' handbook and established a teachers' association for disaster education and a
children's club for disaster prevention. On top of all this, a national disaster safety day was
implemented. Japan celebrates Disaster Prevention Day every year on September 1, the
anniversary of the great Kanto earthquake of 1923, and March 11, the anniversary of the
Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami.
Apart from Japan, Nepal and China are countries that also observe disaster days. In
Nepal, January 15 marks the anniversary of the great Nepal earthquake of 1934. In
Kathmandu, political leaders and prominent figures commemorated the event with activities
such as street parades, shaking table demonstrations, exhibitions on disaster-resistant
construction, street plays, interactive seminars, poster, art and other competitions, and
presentations for children. An earthquake simulation exercise was the highlight of the
commemorative event, with wide public participation and coverage by local media. China has
designated May 12 as National Disaster Safety Day, to commemorate the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake.
Disaster risk reduction and disaster resilience are integral parts of environmental,
economic, social and political sustainable development (ICLEI, 2010). To improve
governance towards resilience, there are five things that need to be considered, which include
(a) Understanding for whom the government regulates or manages;
(b) Use of a territorial approach in governance;
(c) Use of appropriate tools or methods for efficient land management; (d) Use of ICT and e-
governance; and (5) Implementation of innovative governance.
Keys to Successful Disaster Resilient City Governance
Cities that have been able to strengthen their resilience to disasters have provided some
of the following learning about how to manage cities to become disaster resilient. There are at
least ten key factors that determine whether a city becomes disaster resilient, as follows:
Having a Disaster Resilience Organization
Organizations that support the resilience of cities to disasters are needed to contribute to
the goal of sustainable urban development, a holistic approach in understanding potential
threats, and disaster risk governance that should be adopted. In this context, it is important to
involve decision-makers such as local governments, various officials and departments,
academia, business groups, and communities. Participation of these key groups and actors in
planning, implementation and monitoring, and effective organizational structures are
prerequisites for sound decision-making and practice of disaster risk reduction actions. This
will foster collaboration and partnership among all stakeholders for disaster risk prevention,
mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation. Recognizing that the
appropriate organizational structure will vary within and between countries, there are at least
three things that need to be considered, namely as follows:
Build and strengthen institutional capacity and coordination at the local level;
Building alliances and/or networks with all relevant stakeholder groups; and
Establish legislative frameworks and action mechanisms to achieve resilience.
Identify, Understand, and Utilize Current and Future Risk Scenarios
It is based on the premise that disaster risk management needs to be based on an
understanding of disaster risk scenarios across all dimensions of hazard characteristics, risk
exposure, capacity and vulnerability. Analysis and measurement of risk scenarios are
essential for informed decision-making, prioritizing programs or projects, and planning for
disaster risk reduction measures (prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response). The
need for both can be eliminated if local governments have a clear understanding of the risks
they face and fully discuss with the public and other stakeholders about risk scenarios and the
implementation of meaningful disaster risk reduction measures. There are two things that can
be done at this point, which are as follows:
Identify the most likely and most severe scenarios (worst case); and
Utilize information and measurement results from risk scenarios to make development
decisions by involving stakeholders.
Strengthening Financial Capacity for Disaster Resilience
Strengthening financial capacity can be done by including specific resources and specific
mechanisms that can be used to increase resilience. Financial resources can come from
municipal revenues, local or sectoral national distributions and allocations, public-private
partnerships and technical cooperation, as well as civil society and external organizations.
Financial mechanisms can include resilience financing and resilience self-help embedded in
broader development planning and spending. There are at least three ways in which efforts
can be made to increase awareness and financial capacity to build disaster resilient cities, as
follows:
Recognize the opportunity that building resilience to disasters equates to contributing to a
sound economic strategy;
Ensure a budget for resilience; and
Disseminate risk information for development decisions.
Development of Disaster Resilient City Design
Not all hazards or potential disasters can cause a disaster. A disaster occurs when a
potential disaster results in devastation that a community is unable to cope with on its own
without assistance from others. Therefore, preventive measures can help build better
resilience capacity, avoid and/or minimize disruption and destruction of networks and
infrastructure, which can lead to severe social and economic consequences. In addition,
integrating resilience concepts into infrastructure and socio-economic planning and
development will protect the city's development investments. In the context of developing
disaster-resilient urban design, there are several things that need to be considered and done,
namely as follows:
Place urban planning and land use management at the core of urban resilience through
land zoning and disaster-aware planning;
Mapping systemic and specific vulnerabilities; and
Mainstream resilience into ongoing updates of city master plans and sectoral strategies.
Protecting Natural Buffers to Improve Ecosystem Functions
Ecosystems provide essential services for disaster risk reduction as protection and
barriers against disaster threats and hazards. Ecosystems are central to disaster mitigation by
offering, for example, regulation against flooding and protecting steep slopes from potential
landslides. Ecosystems also increase the resilience of communities to withstand, cope with
and recover from disasters by providing multiple benefits such as food, firewood, clean water
and the like. Degraded ecosystems will not be able to provide such mitigation benefits and
resources, which in turn significantly increases community vulnerability. The process of
urban expansion changes the ecosystem fabric and often generates new risks and new
vulnerabilities. Recognizing the economic value and multiple benefits of healthy ecosystems
that act as natural buffers is important to reduce risks and contribute to the resilience and
sustainability of cities. Relevant ecosystem services may include, but are not limited to: water
retention or water infiltration; afforestation; urban vegetation; floodplains; mangroves, and
other coastal vegetation. Some things that need to be considered in efforts to increase
resilience through ecosystems are as follows:
Raising awareness of the impact of change environmental and ecosystem degradation on
disaster risk by recognizing the value and benefits of ecosystem services for disaster risk
prevention, protecting and or enhancing them as part of disaster risk reduction strategies
for the city;
Promote management of critical ecosystems to strengthen resilience to disasters;
Strengthen existing ecosystem management based on risk scenario assessments; and
Anticipate changes from climate trends, urbanization and make plans that allow
ecosystem services to remain.
Strengthening Institutional Capacity
Understanding the city's institutional background on past efforts towards risk reduction
or management and resilience building can help detect current gaps in local capacity to
coordinate and take action towards disaster prevention, mitigation, response and recovery.
Another advantage is to be able to identify the best and most appropriate approach effective to
strengthen relevant institutions in managing disaster risk. The institutions in question are the
central government and local governments. Other groups also have a role in disaster risk
management by complementing and supporting government measures. These groups include
the private sector that provides public services according to local needs, such as telephone,
water, energy, and health, as well as volunteer capacity or equipment in the event of a
disaster; owners and operators of industrial facilities; building owners (individuals or
companies); NGOs; professionals and academics, employers and labor organizations; and
cultural institutions and civil society organizations. Some things to note, are as follows:
Identifying the specific nature of each disaster risk and mapping the characteristics and
support needs of each institution. This requires reaching a common understanding of the
roles and responsibilities of each;
Building local capacity and strengthening participation in disaster management and
resilience building; and
Ensure consistency of disaster risk data and information among stakeholders. This can be
done by creating and implementing an information and data framework for resilience and
disaster risk reduction efforts.
Identifying, Understanding and Strengthening Social Capacity
Communities should take part in collective efforts to create disaster-resilient cities
through education, training and disaster awareness programs. All components of the
community must understand the hazards and risks they face, so that they can prepare and take
steps to cope with potential disasters. Education and capacity building programs are also key
to mobilizing citizen and community participation in disaster management strategies, such as
improving community preparedness and response to local early warnings. Some things that
need to be considered in improving community capacity to ensure disaster resilience are as
follows:
Establish a comprehensive response unit at the local level;
Develop risk reduction and resilience information;
Integrate disaster risk reduction and resilience into formal education and other training
programs;
Improving public education and awareness through information dissemination through the
business sector and media; and
Establish and maintain open access to data for disaster preparedness and response.
Improving Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure is an important part of urban governance and especially in relation to
emergency response conditions. Therefore, the government needs to pay special attention to
safety needs in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure so that it can continue to be
operational during emergencies. The main infrastructure required for city operations such as
transportation (roads, railways, airports and other ports), vehicle fuel supply lines,
telecommunications systems, utility systems, hospitals and health facilities, educational
institutions and school facilities, food supply chains, police and fire services, and so on. Some
things to note are as follows:
Measurement of critical infrastructure capacity and adequacy;
Strengthening vulnerable infrastructure (infrastructure replacement and procurement);
Build alliances with the private sector to leverage technical and financial resources and
ensure that private investments follow environmental and risk reduction norms; and
Recognize the need for service relevance and operational priorities during and after a
disaster.
Ensuring the Effectiveness of Disaster Response
Well-developed preparedness and response plans can not only save lives and property,
but also contribute to resilience and post-disaster recovery by reducing disaster impacts.
Preparedness efforts, early warning systems and communication systems will help ensure that
cities, communities and individuals threatened by hazards can act in sufficient time and
appropriately to reduce injuries, loss of life and damage to property or the environment.
Sustainability can be achieved if the community itself and local authorities understand the
importance and need for emergency preparedness and response at the local level. Some things
to consider are as follows:
Create and improve preparedness plans, including training;
Strengthening early warning systems; and
Improve the city's emergency response services.
Accelerate City Recovery and Build Back Better
Cities are built by multiple entities over decades or centuries, and are therefore very
difficult to rebuild in a short period of time. Until recently, there was a priority debate
between the need to rebuild quickly and rebuild safely and sustainably. A planned and
participatory recovery and reconstruction process will help the city to be able to reactivate
city life as soon as possible, restoring and rebuilding damaged infrastructure and restoring the
city's economy, empowering its citizens to rebuild their lives, homes and livelihoods.
Reconstruction should start as soon as possible, even before a potential disaster becomes a
disaster. Essentially, cities can foresee needs, establish operational mechanisms and assign
resources required as preparation and mitigation efforts, if supported by capable systems.
Recovery and rehabilitation can be planned long before a disaster occurs. Leadership,
coordination and funding are important parts of the effort. Some things to consider are as
follows:
Recovery must be addressed in multiple aspects and dimensions;
Include affected populations in efforts to define needs and recovery plans;
Recovery is an opportunity to build back better and enhance development;
Seeking resources, strengthening alliances and ensuring sustainability; and
Integrate disaster risk reduction in all investment decisions for recovery and
reconstruction.
Challenges in managing Disaster Resilient Cities
GSDRC (2014) outlines some of the challenges of managing disaster resilient cities in
terms of adaptive capacity, poverty and inequality, political economy, integration of disaster
resilience in aid operations and policies, disaster resilience analysis and measurement,
environmental support and government action, and financial conditions.
Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity relates to the capacity of systems, institutions, people and other
organisms to be able to adjust to potential damage, take benefit from opportunities or respond
to possible consequences (IPCC, 2014). Adaptive capacity includes prevention strategies,
which involve making choices to avoid events, and impact minimization strategies. Existing
research has highlighted that adaptive capacities are interrelated, and no single factor can
explain the level of disaster resilience in any context. For example, the role of indigenous
knowledge must be understood as closely linked to socio-economic variables that support or
undermine adaptation efforts.
Poverty and Inequality Conditions
The capacity of individuals, families or communities to prepare for, withstand and
respond to hazards or crises is enabled and constrained by social status, income and ethnicity
(Bosher et al., 2007). There is a common understanding that it is the poor who will suffer the
greatest losses from disasters (Oxfam, 2013; Shepherd et al., 2013). In 2008, the United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) noted that 94% of all people killed by
disasters between 1975-2000 were from low- or lower-middle-income groups (UNISDR,
2008). Disasters deprive people of assets and livelihoods, reproducing poverty and inequality
(UNISDR, 2008; Shepherd et al., 2013). Therefore, good disaster risk management can
reduce the impact of disasters, especially on the lower middle class (Shepherd et al., 2013).
Research in eight villages in coastal Andhra Pradesh in southern India concluded that
caste is a key factor determining access to resources essential to aid recovery from disasters
(Bosher et al., 2007). In this case, 'lower' castes lacked access to the assets, public facilities
and political networks necessary to aid their recovery. Gender is a tangible form of inequality
that shapes vulnerability to disasters (Ganapati, 2012, 2013; OCHA, 2012; Oxfam UK, 2012;
Turnbull et al., 2013). For women and girls, injustices in everyday life, not just during
disasters, tend to create greater risk, reduce life chances, and deepen material and non-
material losses (Bradshaw & Fordham, 2013). In addition, there is also great concern
expressed in the literature about the vulnerability of other high-risk populations: children, the
elderly, and people with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Such groups can be disadvantaged
and discriminated against, and can face a range of inequalities that magnify their vulnerability
risk (Peek et al., 2010). On the one hand, these disadvantaged groups are usually more
exposed and vulnerable to hazards. However, they can also contribute to building disaster
resilience (Oliver-Smith et al., 2012; Oxfam, 2013; Turnbull et al., 2013).
Political Economy
A number of aspects of a country's political economy can affect disaster resilience. One
of these is regulations relating to urban building codes and land use, poor regulations, or poor
enforcement of regulations, can create economic and social conditions that put vulnerable
groups at greater risk and that are difficult to remedy (GFDRR, 2010; Turnbull et al., 2013;
Wilkinson, 2012a). Another important issue, documented in several case studies, is how
corruption and patronage systems limit adaptive capacity and weaken disaster resilience. One
study in Bangladesh found that pre- and post-disaster interventions were co-opted and used to
increase the assets of political elites to the detriment of low-income groups (Mahmud &
Prowse, 2012). In many developing countries, public policy and political commitment to
disaster resilience is suboptimal. In a meta-review of evidence, Wilkinson (2012a) attributes
this to a lack of political interest and will, unfavorable economic and political incentives,
information gaps, and coordination problems.
Integration of Disaster Resilience in Aid Operation and Policy
In many cases, disaster resilience efforts are hampered by political economy, power and
inequality, including gender inequality (OCHA, 2012; Oxfam, 2013; UNISDR, 2011).
Therefore, Oxfam (2013) recommends a lens that focuses on politics and equality to aid
resilience, which focuses on several aspects including the following:
Social insurance and other programs that target disadvantaged groups who need greater
support and services to have equal opportunities;
Build pro-poor institutions at all levels, which represent and respond to the needs and
capacities of the most vulnerable;
Ensure rights and accountability, and the ability of women and men to assert their rights
and hold power holders accountable through participation in decision-making at all levels;
and
Provide free essential basic services for health and education, and social protection
Disaster Resilience Analysis and Measurement
Several organizations have developed guidelines for measuring disaster resilience. One
widely used guideline is the resilience risk framework, which uses the five dimensions of
resilience identified in the Hyogo Framework for Action (Twigg, 2009). These five
dimensions include governance, risk assessment, knowledge and education, risk management
and vulnerability reduction, and disaster preparedness and response. Other organizations'
frameworks measure different dimensions of resilience. Oxfam, for example, recently
developed a multi-dimensional framework that incorporates livelihoods, innovation capacity,
access to emergency resources, integrity of the natural environment, and social and
institutional capacity (Hughes et al., 2013).
Environmental Support and Government Action
In this context there are three things that need attention, namely: multi-level and multi-
stakeholder working in an enabling environment, supportive actions from the national
government, and supportive actions from local governments.
Multi-level and multi-stakeholder working in an enabling environment
Group interventions and participation in disaster risk reduction at different scales and levels
of action are critical. The policy and institutional environment that supports long-term
disaster resilience should also involve governments supporting the capacity of individuals,
civil society, the private sector and at-risk populations to manage and adapt to risk. Based on
desk and field research in disaster-prone areas in three countries, Reaching Resilience (n.d.)
found that a multi-stakeholder, multi-level approach is effective when integrating disaster risk
reduction, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction in its intervention efforts, as
follows:
Understand and create dialog about people at risk mapping;
Explore appropriate institutional and governance contexts;
Analyzing strengths and relationships between stakeholders;
Supportive actions from local government
Turnbull et al. (2013) provide detailed guidance on risk governance at the local level. To
strengthen risk prevention, efforts are needed to improve local stakeholders' access to public
information, hazard mapping, use of forecasting and early warning systems. Strategies for
dealing with high-impact disasters include the development of disaster management
committees, emergency services, emergency plans and emergency funds, as well as social
insurance mechanisms. Strategies to protect assets and services include developing disaster-
resistant building techniques for houses, schools and hospitals, and investing in water and
sanitation technologies for disaster risk reduction.
Financial Condition
Efforts to improve disaster resilience are typically characterized by shortcomings in
terms of funding, cost and effectiveness of interventions for resilience that are still limited,
yet the need is growing (DFID, 2011; GFDRR, 2010). Multi-year funding for disaster
resilience is often recommended, especially for protracted crises (Frankenberger et al., 2012).
Despite these challenges, several studies have shown that building disaster resilience is more
cost-effective than a late response (Cabot Venton et al., 2013; GFDRR, 2010). The cost-
effectiveness of prevention can essentially be improved through efforts, not least on open
access to information about hazards or risk exposure, provision of disaster infrastructure and
services, other disaster investments, and stakeholder engagement in disaster risk
management.
Conclusion
Ensuring a city has disaster-resilient urban governance is not an easy task. There are
many factors that need to be considered and are interrelated with each other. Disaster resilient
city governance is strongly influenced by infrastructure resilience, institutional resilience,
economic resilience and social resilience. These four things must be managed properly and
continuously in order to create a disaster resilient city. From the ten key success factors of
disaster resilient governance that have been presented in the discussion session, it can be
concluded that awareness of the importance of disaster mitigation is the initial guide to the
success of disaster resilient city governance. Besides the urgency of the existence of
leadership, communication, coordination, participation and information disclosure are also
considered as the backbone for the sustainability of disaster resilient governance.
Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure resilience refers to reducing the vulnerability of structures such as
buildings and transportation systems. Infrastructure resilience also refers to protective
capacities such as maintenance facilities health, vulnerability of buildings to hazards, critical
infrastructure, availability of roads for evacuation, post-disaster supply lines and community
capacity for response and recovery. One country that is trying to strengthen infrastructure
resilience in disaster management is the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands is one of the
areas that is often visited by Atlantic hurricanes. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan, the worst storm in
86 years, hit the largest island, Grand Cayman and damaged 90% of the buildings (Young,
2004). Electricity, water and communications were disrupted for months in some areas of the
Cayman Islands. The island then began the process of rebuilding on a large scale, and within
a national strategic framework for disaster risk reduction. Among other efforts, a 124-bed
hospital was built to Category 5 hurricane standards. This health facility remained functional
during and after Hurricane Ivan, alongside efforts to provide shelter for more than 1,000
people (CY Gov, 2005).
Institutional Resilience
Institutional resilience refers to the systems, governmental and non-governmental that
manage a community. Institutions, whether built to address disaster risk or not, can influence
the vulnerability of different community groups through several pathways and conditions
(Lebel et al., 2006). In the conceptualization of disaster risk, the influence of institutionalized
capacities and practices on disaster risk management is also influenced by ecological and
social resilience and the attributes of the disaster event itself.
In disaster risk management, the institutional and political development context is geared
towards answering five questions: when do disasters occur; who and what is at risk; who is
responsible; how does disaster risk change; and how to evaluate (IFA, 2006). Examples of
institutional resilience efforts have been made by Thailand and El Savador. Thailand through
the Baan Mankong program attempted to improve the condition of informal settlements by
launching an initiative to upgrade and improve the condition of slums and squatter
settlements. Thailand's slum upgrading and improvement program adopts a community-based
approach to solving the problems of unsafe housing and poor living conditions, and puts
residents at the heart of the process (Archer, 2012). The Baan Mankong program channels
funds in the form of infrastructure subsidies and housing loans directly to low-income
communities in informal settlements. The funding comes almost entirely from domestic
resources - a combination of national government, local government and community
contributions. Under this national program, people in illegal settlements can obtain legal land
tenure through various means such as direct purchase from the landowner or moving to
another location provided by the government.
Another example of efforts to improve institutional resilience is that of Santa Tecla.
Santa Tecla is part of the metropolitan area of El Salvador's capital, San Salvador. Santa
Tecla experienced two earthquakes in 2001. In just five seconds, landslides caused more than
700 deaths, displaced 20% of the city's land, and severely damaged 38% of the infrastructure.
The government of Santa Tecla thought deeply about what could be done to transform the
city and make it disaster-proof. The Santa Tecla government then realized the need to start
designing urban land management in a more responsible and sustainable manner. In this
regard, the government recognized the need for citizens to understand the importance of what
the government was doing or the small changes that would occur by encouraging
participation in the 'Mesas de Ciudadanos' (citizens' groups) program, which brings together
different stakeholder organizations in periodic discussions and decision-making.
Economic Resilience
Economic resilience refers to the economic diversity of communities such as the type of
employment, number of businesses, and their ability to function normally after a disaster.
Economic resilience in the concept of disaster resilience contains four definitions, namely:
(a) Robustness, the ability to avoid direct and indirect economic losses; (b) Redundancy, the
level of untapped or excess economic capacity; (c) Resourcefulness - stabilization measures;
and (d) Rapidity - the speed of return to pre-disaster conditions (Bruneau et al., 2003).
Australia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and China have all made efforts to improve
economic resilience after disasters. The city of Cairns, Australia sets up a regular budget
intended for disaster preparedness and response. The city has an annual operating budget that
includes funding for disaster management units, coordination centers, volunteer services and
community awareness programs. In recent years, its annual budget includes allocations for
the construction of buildings, emergency response vehicles and equipment, disaster risk
assessment software, flood warning network upgrades and drainage and flood mitigation
investments. These are the city's commitment to disaster risk reduction. These efforts are
complemented by investments and partnerships at the national level and also involve
professionals in the built environment, the private sector and academic institutions. Similar to
Australia, three other countries - the Philippines, China and Sri Lanka - also have policies to
support investment in disaster risk reduction. Since 2001, cities in the Philippines have been
required to allocate 5% of their local government budgets to disaster funds. Under the
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010; cities in the Philippines can spend
70% of this allocation on preparedness and relief/reserve equipment. Sri Lanka, through the
Ministry of Disaster Management announced that in 2011 the government allocated Rs. 8
billion for flood control programs in the capital, Colombo, while launching a safe urban
planning program to minimize disasters as part of the Resilient Cities Campaign. The funds
were used to clean canals, reconstruct drainage systems, and for other measures to prevent
flooding in Colombo. In China, provincial governors of two disaster-prone Chinese provinces
(Sichuan and Yunnan) committed additional resources to disaster reduction. The Sichuan
Provincial Government invested 2 billion Yuan to improve the local geological disaster
prevention system. The Yunnan Provincial Government, meanwhile, committed to invest at
least 10 billion yuan over ten years in local disaster prevention and assessment systems.
Social Resilience
Social resilience refers to the demographic profile of a community by gender, age,
ethnicity, socioeconomic status and other groupings as well as its social capital profile.
Although difficult to measure, social capital refers to the sense (values, norms and culture) of
community, the ability of groups of citizens to adapt and the sense of attachment to a place.
Strengthening social resilience in disaster management has been applied by Japan, Nepal and
China.
Japan has a "watch and learn" pattern where children and communities learn what they
call Mountain and City Risk as early as possible. Starting at the kindergarten level, Japanese
schools implement education on how to detect and react in disaster situations, conduct regular
disaster response drills and use "disaster watch". This time-consuming investment saved
many lives in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. One of the cities that implemented
this program is Saijo City. Saijo City is one of the cities with an old population in Japan. This
old population is a major problem in disaster response in Saijo City. To be more disaster
resilient, Saijo City needs the energy of young people who are not many. Therefore, Saijo
City implemented a disaster risk awareness program targeting school children. For 12 years,
the Saijo City government has focused on projects to improve the quality of the city's
physical environment, and "mountain and city observation" projects for children. Young
residents meet with the elderly to learn together about the risks faced by Saijo City and to
draw lessons from the 2004 typhoon disaster. Saijo City has developed a 'mountain and city
watching' handbook and established a teachers' association for disaster education and a
children's club for disaster prevention. On top of all this, a national disaster safety day was
implemented. Japan celebrates Disaster Prevention Day every year on September 1, the
anniversary of the great Kanto earthquake of 1923, and March 11, the anniversary of the
Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami.
Apart from Japan, Nepal and China are countries that also observe disaster days. In
Nepal, January 15 marks the anniversary of the great Nepal earthquake of 1934. In
Kathmandu, political leaders and prominent figures commemorated the event with activities
such as street parades, shaking table demonstrations, exhibitions on disaster-resistant
construction, street plays, interactive seminars, poster, art and other competitions, and
presentations for children. An earthquake simulation exercise was the highlight of the
commemorative event, with wide public participation and coverage by local media. China has
designated May 12 as National Disaster Safety Day, to commemorate the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake.
Disaster risk reduction and disaster resilience are integral parts of environmental,
economic, social and political sustainable development (ICLEI, 2010). To improve
governance towards resilience, there are five things that need to be considered, which include
(a) Understanding for whom the government regulates or manages;
(b) Use of a territorial approach in governance;
(c) Use of appropriate tools or methods for efficient land management; (d) Use of ICT and e-
governance; and (5) Implementation of innovative governance.
Keys to Successful Disaster Resilient City Governance
Cities that have been able to strengthen their resilience to disasters have provided some
of the following learning about how to manage cities to become disaster resilient. There are at
least ten key factors that determine whether a city becomes disaster resilient, as follows:
Having a Disaster Resilience Organization
Organizations that support the resilience of cities to disasters are needed to contribute to
the goal of sustainable urban development, a holistic approach in understanding potential
threats, and disaster risk governance that should be adopted. In this context, it is important to
involve decision-makers such as local governments, various officials and departments,
academia, business groups, and communities. Participation of these key groups and actors in
planning, implementation and monitoring, and effective organizational structures are
prerequisites for sound decision-making and practice of disaster risk reduction actions. This
will foster collaboration and partnership among all stakeholders for disaster risk prevention,
mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation. Recognizing that the
appropriate organizational structure will vary within and between countries, there are at least
three things that need to be considered, namely as follows:
Build and strengthen institutional capacity and coordination at the local level;
Building alliances and/or networks with all relevant stakeholder groups; and
Establish legislative frameworks and action mechanisms to achieve resilience.
Identify, Understand, and Utilize Current and Future Risk Scenarios
It is based on the premise that disaster risk management needs to be based on an
understanding of disaster risk scenarios across all dimensions of hazard characteristics, risk
exposure, capacity and vulnerability. Analysis and measurement of risk scenarios are
essential for informed decision-making, prioritizing programs or projects, and planning for
disaster risk reduction measures (prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response). The
need for both can be eliminated if local governments have a clear understanding of the risks
they face and fully discuss with the public and other stakeholders about risk scenarios and the
implementation of meaningful disaster risk reduction measures. There are two things that can
be done at this point, which are as follows:
Identify the most likely and most severe scenarios (worst case); and
Utilize information and measurement results from risk scenarios to make development
decisions by involving stakeholders.
Strengthening Financial Capacity for Disaster Resilience
Strengthening financial capacity can be done by including specific resources and specific
mechanisms that can be used to increase resilience. Financial resources can come from
municipal revenues, local or sectoral national distributions and allocations, public-private
partnerships and technical cooperation, as well as civil society and external organizations.
Financial mechanisms can include resilience financing and resilience self-help embedded in
broader development planning and spending. There are at least three ways in which efforts
can be made to increase awareness and financial capacity to build disaster resilient cities, as
follows:
Recognize the opportunity that building resilience to disasters equates to contributing to a
sound economic strategy;
Ensure a budget for resilience; and
Disseminate risk information for development decisions.
Development of Disaster Resilient City Design
Not all hazards or potential disasters can cause a disaster. A disaster occurs when a
potential disaster results in devastation that a community is unable to cope with on its own
without assistance from others. Therefore, preventive measures can help build better
resilience capacity, avoid and/or minimize disruption and destruction of networks and
infrastructure, which can lead to severe social and economic consequences. In addition,
integrating resilience concepts into infrastructure and socio-economic planning and
development will protect the city's development investments. In the context of developing
disaster-resilient urban design, there are several things that need to be considered and done,
namely as follows:
Place urban planning and land use management at the core of urban resilience through
land zoning and disaster-aware planning;
Mapping systemic and specific vulnerabilities; and
Mainstream resilience into ongoing updates of city master plans and sectoral strategies.
Protecting Natural Buffers to Improve Ecosystem Functions
Ecosystems provide essential services for disaster risk reduction as protection and
barriers against disaster threats and hazards. Ecosystems are central to disaster mitigation by
offering, for example, regulation against flooding and protecting steep slopes from potential
landslides. Ecosystems also increase the resilience of communities to withstand, cope with
and recover from disasters by providing multiple benefits such as food, firewood, clean water
and the like. Degraded ecosystems will not be able to provide such mitigation benefits and
resources, which in turn significantly increases community vulnerability. The process of
urban expansion changes the ecosystem fabric and often generates new risks and new
vulnerabilities. Recognizing the economic value and multiple benefits of healthy ecosystems
that act as natural buffers is important to reduce risks and contribute to the resilience and
sustainability of cities. Relevant ecosystem services may include, but are not limited to: water
retention or water infiltration; afforestation; urban vegetation; floodplains; mangroves, and
other coastal vegetation. Some things that need to be considered in efforts to increase
resilience through ecosystems are as follows:
Raising awareness of the impact of change environmental and ecosystem degradation on
disaster risk by recognizing the value and benefits of ecosystem services for disaster risk
prevention, protecting and or enhancing them as part of disaster risk reduction strategies
for the city;
Promote management of critical ecosystems to strengthen resilience to disasters;
Strengthen existing ecosystem management based on risk scenario assessments; and
Anticipate changes from climate trends, urbanization and make plans that allow
ecosystem services to remain.
Strengthening Institutional Capacity
Understanding the city's institutional background on past efforts towards risk reduction
or management and resilience building can help detect current gaps in local capacity to
coordinate and take action towards disaster prevention, mitigation, response and recovery.
Another advantage is to be able to identify the best and most appropriate approach effective to
strengthen relevant institutions in managing disaster risk. The institutions in question are the
central government and local governments. Other groups also have a role in disaster risk
management by complementing and supporting government measures. These groups include
the private sector that provides public services according to local needs, such as telephone,
water, energy, and health, as well as volunteer capacity or equipment in the event of a
disaster; owners and operators of industrial facilities; building owners (individuals or
companies); NGOs; professionals and academics, employers and labor organizations; and
cultural institutions and civil society organizations. Some things to note, are as follows:
Identifying the specific nature of each disaster risk and mapping the characteristics and
support needs of each institution. This requires reaching a common understanding of the
roles and responsibilities of each;
Building local capacity and strengthening participation in disaster management and
resilience building; and
Ensure consistency of disaster risk data and information among stakeholders. This can be
done by creating and implementing an information and data framework for resilience and
disaster risk reduction efforts.
Identifying, Understanding and Strengthening Social Capacity
Communities should take part in collective efforts to create disaster-resilient cities
through education, training and disaster awareness programs. All components of the
community must understand the hazards and risks they face, so that they can prepare and take
steps to cope with potential disasters. Education and capacity building programs are also key
to mobilizing citizen and community participation in disaster management strategies, such as
improving community preparedness and response to local early warnings. Some things that
need to be considered in improving community capacity to ensure disaster resilience are as
follows:
Establish a comprehensive response unit at the local level;
Develop risk reduction and resilience information;
Integrate disaster risk reduction and resilience into formal education and other training
programs;
Improving public education and awareness through information dissemination through the
business sector and media; and
Establish and maintain open access to data for disaster preparedness and response.
Improving Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure is an important part of urban governance and especially in relation to
emergency response conditions. Therefore, the government needs to pay special attention to
safety needs in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure so that it can continue to be
operational during emergencies. The main infrastructure required for city operations such as
transportation (roads, railways, airports and other ports), vehicle fuel supply lines,
telecommunications systems, utility systems, hospitals and health facilities, educational
institutions and school facilities, food supply chains, police and fire services, and so on. Some
things to note are as follows:
Measurement of critical infrastructure capacity and adequacy;
Strengthening vulnerable infrastructure (infrastructure replacement and procurement);
Build alliances with the private sector to leverage technical and financial resources and
ensure that private investments follow environmental and risk reduction norms; and
Recognize the need for service relevance and operational priorities during and after a
disaster.
Ensuring the Effectiveness of Disaster Response
Well-developed preparedness and response plans can not only save lives and property,
but also contribute to resilience and post-disaster recovery by reducing disaster impacts.
Preparedness efforts, early warning systems and communication systems will help ensure that
cities, communities and individuals threatened by hazards can act in sufficient time and
appropriately to reduce injuries, loss of life and damage to property or the environment.
Sustainability can be achieved if the community itself and local authorities understand the
importance and need for emergency preparedness and response at the local level. Some things
to consider are as follows:
Create and improve preparedness plans, including training;
Strengthening early warning systems; and
Improve the city's emergency response services.
Accelerate City Recovery and Build Back Better
Cities are built by multiple entities over decades or centuries, and are therefore very
difficult to rebuild in a short period of time. Until recently, there was a priority debate
between the need to rebuild quickly and rebuild safely and sustainably. A planned and
participatory recovery and reconstruction process will help the city to be able to reactivate
city life as soon as possible, restoring and rebuilding damaged infrastructure and restoring the
city's economy, empowering its citizens to rebuild their lives, homes and livelihoods.
Reconstruction should start as soon as possible, even before a potential disaster becomes a
disaster. Essentially, cities can foresee needs, establish operational mechanisms and assign
resources required as preparation and mitigation efforts, if supported by capable systems.
Recovery and rehabilitation can be planned long before a disaster occurs. Leadership,
coordination and funding are important parts of the effort. Some things to consider are as
follows:
Recovery must be addressed in multiple aspects and dimensions;
Include affected populations in efforts to define needs and recovery plans;
Recovery is an opportunity to build back better and enhance development;
Seeking resources, strengthening alliances and ensuring sustainability; and
Integrate disaster risk reduction in all investment decisions for recovery and
reconstruction.
Challenges in managing Disaster Resilient Cities
GSDRC (2014) outlines some of the challenges of managing disaster resilient cities in
terms of adaptive capacity, poverty and inequality, political economy, integration of disaster
resilience in aid operations and policies, disaster resilience analysis and measurement,
environmental support and government action, and financial conditions.
Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity relates to the capacity of systems, institutions, people and other
organisms to be able to adjust to potential damage, take benefit from opportunities or respond
to possible consequences (IPCC, 2014). Adaptive capacity includes prevention strategies,
which involve making choices to avoid events, and impact minimization strategies. Existing
research has highlighted that adaptive capacities are interrelated, and no single factor can
explain the level of disaster resilience in any context. For example, the role of indigenous
knowledge must be understood as closely linked to socio-economic variables that support or
undermine adaptation efforts.
Poverty and Inequality Conditions
The capacity of individuals, families or communities to prepare for, withstand and
respond to hazards or crises is enabled and constrained by social status, income and ethnicity
(Bosher et al., 2007). There is a common understanding that it is the poor who will suffer the
greatest losses from disasters (Oxfam, 2013; Shepherd et al., 2013). In 2008, the United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) noted that 94% of all people killed by
disasters between 1975-2000 were from low- or lower-middle-income groups (UNISDR,
2008). Disasters deprive people of assets and livelihoods, reproducing poverty and inequality
(UNISDR, 2008; Shepherd et al., 2013). Therefore, good disaster risk management can
reduce the impact of disasters, especially on the lower middle class (Shepherd et al., 2013).
Research in eight villages in coastal Andhra Pradesh in southern India concluded that
caste is a key factor determining access to resources essential to aid recovery from disasters
(Bosher et al., 2007). In this case, 'lower' castes lacked access to the assets, public facilities
and political networks necessary to aid their recovery. Gender is a tangible form of inequality
that shapes vulnerability to disasters (Ganapati, 2012, 2013; OCHA, 2012; Oxfam UK, 2012;
Turnbull et al., 2013). For women and girls, injustices in everyday life, not just during
disasters, tend to create greater risk, reduce life chances, and deepen material and non-
material losses (Bradshaw & Fordham, 2013). In addition, there is also great concern
expressed in the literature about the vulnerability of other high-risk populations: children, the
elderly, and people with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Such groups can be disadvantaged
and discriminated against, and can face a range of inequalities that magnify their vulnerability
risk (Peek et al., 2010). On the one hand, these disadvantaged groups are usually more
exposed and vulnerable to hazards. However, they can also contribute to building disaster
resilience (Oliver-Smith et al., 2012; Oxfam, 2013; Turnbull et al., 2013).
Political Economy
A number of aspects of a country's political economy can affect disaster resilience. One
of these is regulations relating to urban building codes and land use, poor regulations, or poor
enforcement of regulations, can create economic and social conditions that put vulnerable
groups at greater risk and that are difficult to remedy (GFDRR, 2010; Turnbull et al., 2013;
Wilkinson, 2012a). Another important issue, documented in several case studies, is how
corruption and patronage systems limit adaptive capacity and weaken disaster resilience. One
study in Bangladesh found that pre- and post-disaster interventions were co-opted and used to
increase the assets of political elites to the detriment of low-income groups (Mahmud &
Prowse, 2012). In many developing countries, public policy and political commitment to
disaster resilience is suboptimal. In a meta-review of evidence, Wilkinson (2012a) attributes
this to a lack of political interest and will, unfavorable economic and political incentives,
information gaps, and coordination problems.
Integration of Disaster Resilience in Aid Operation and Policy
In many cases, disaster resilience efforts are hampered by political economy, power and
inequality, including gender inequality (OCHA, 2012; Oxfam, 2013; UNISDR, 2011).
Therefore, Oxfam (2013) recommends a lens that focuses on politics and equality to aid
resilience, which focuses on several aspects including the following:
Social insurance and other programs that target disadvantaged groups who need greater
support and services to have equal opportunities;
Build pro-poor institutions at all levels, which represent and respond to the needs and
capacities of the most vulnerable;
Ensure rights and accountability, and the ability of women and men to assert their rights
and hold power holders accountable through participation in decision-making at all levels;
and
Provide free essential basic services for health and education, and social protection
Disaster Resilience Analysis and Measurement
Several organizations have developed guidelines for measuring disaster resilience. One
widely used guideline is the resilience risk framework, which uses the five dimensions of
resilience identified in the Hyogo Framework for Action (Twigg, 2009). These five
dimensions include governance, risk assessment, knowledge and education, risk management
and vulnerability reduction, and disaster preparedness and response. Other organizations'
frameworks measure different dimensions of resilience. Oxfam, for example, recently
developed a multi-dimensional framework that incorporates livelihoods, innovation capacity,
access to emergency resources, integrity of the natural environment, and social and
institutional capacity (Hughes et al., 2013).
Environmental Support and Government Action
In this context there are three things that need attention, namely: multi-level and multi-
stakeholder working in an enabling environment, supportive actions from the national
government, and supportive actions from local governments.
Multi-level and multi-stakeholder working in an enabling environment
Group interventions and participation in disaster risk reduction at different scales and levels
of action are critical. The policy and institutional environment that supports long-term
disaster resilience should also involve governments supporting the capacity of individuals,
civil society, the private sector and at-risk populations to manage and adapt to risk. Based on
desk and field research in disaster-prone areas in three countries, Reaching Resilience (n.d.)
found that a multi-stakeholder, multi-level approach is effective when integrating disaster risk
reduction, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction in its intervention efforts, as
follows:
Understand and create dialog about people at risk mapping;
Explore appropriate institutional and governance contexts;
Analyzing strengths and relationships between stakeholders;
Supportive actions from local government
Turnbull et al. (2013) provide detailed guidance on risk governance at the local level. To
strengthen risk prevention, efforts are needed to improve local stakeholders' access to public
information, hazard mapping, use of forecasting and early warning systems. Strategies for
dealing with high-impact disasters include the development of disaster management
committees, emergency services, emergency plans and emergency funds, as well as social
insurance mechanisms. Strategies to protect assets and services include developing disaster-
resistant building techniques for houses, schools and hospitals, and investing in water and
sanitation technologies for disaster risk reduction.
Financial Condition
Efforts to improve disaster resilience are typically characterized by shortcomings in
terms of funding, cost and effectiveness of interventions for resilience that are still limited,
yet the need is growing (DFID, 2011; GFDRR, 2010). Multi-year funding for disaster
resilience is often recommended, especially for protracted crises (Frankenberger et al., 2012).
Despite these challenges, several studies have shown that building disaster resilience is more
cost-effective than a late response (Cabot Venton et al., 2013; GFDRR, 2010). The cost-
effectiveness of prevention can essentially be improved through efforts, not least on open
access to information about hazards or risk exposure, provision of disaster infrastructure and
services, other disaster investments, and stakeholder engagement in disaster risk
management.
Conclusion
Ensuring a city has disaster-resilient urban governance is not an easy task. There are
many factors that need to be considered and are interrelated with each other. Disaster resilient
city governance is strongly influenced by infrastructure resilience, institutional resilience,
economic resilience and social resilience. These four things must be managed properly and
continuously in order to create a disaster resilient city. From the ten key success factors of
disaster resilient governance that have been presented in the discussion session, it can be
concluded that awareness of the importance of disaster mitigation is the initial guide to the
success of disaster resilient city governance. Besides the urgency of the existence of
leadership, communication, coordination, participation and information disclosure are also
considered as the backbone for the sustainability of disaster resilient governance.
Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure resilience refers to reducing the vulnerability of structures such as
buildings and transportation systems. Infrastructure resilience also refers to protective
capacities such as maintenance facilities health, vulnerability of buildings to hazards, critical
infrastructure, availability of roads for evacuation, post-disaster supply lines and community
capacity for response and recovery. One country that is trying to strengthen infrastructure
resilience in disaster management is the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands is one of the
areas that is often visited by Atlantic hurricanes. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan, the worst storm in
86 years, hit the largest island, Grand Cayman and damaged 90% of the buildings (Young,
2004). Electricity, water and communications were disrupted for months in some areas of the
Cayman Islands. The island then began the process of rebuilding on a large scale, and within
a national strategic framework for disaster risk reduction. Among other efforts, a 124-bed
hospital was built to Category 5 hurricane standards. This health facility remained functional
during and after Hurricane Ivan, alongside efforts to provide shelter for more than 1,000
people (CY Gov, 2005).
Institutional Resilience
Institutional resilience refers to the systems, governmental and non-governmental that
manage a community. Institutions, whether built to address disaster risk or not, can influence
the vulnerability of different community groups through several pathways and conditions
(Lebel et al., 2006). In the conceptualization of disaster risk, the influence of institutionalized
capacities and practices on disaster risk management is also influenced by ecological and
social resilience and the attributes of the disaster event itself.
In disaster risk management, the institutional and political development context is geared
towards answering five questions: when do disasters occur; who and what is at risk; who is
responsible; how does disaster risk change; and how to evaluate (IFA, 2006). Examples of
institutional resilience efforts have been made by Thailand and El Savador. Thailand through
the Baan Mankong program attempted to improve the condition of informal settlements by
launching an initiative to upgrade and improve the condition of slums and squatter
settlements. Thailand's slum upgrading and improvement program adopts a community-based
approach to solving the problems of unsafe housing and poor living conditions, and puts
residents at the heart of the process (Archer, 2012). The Baan Mankong program channels
funds in the form of infrastructure subsidies and housing loans directly to low-income
communities in informal settlements. The funding comes almost entirely from domestic
resources - a combination of national government, local government and community
contributions. Under this national program, people in illegal settlements can obtain legal land
tenure through various means such as direct purchase from the landowner or moving to
another location provided by the government.
Another example of efforts to improve institutional resilience is that of Santa Tecla.
Santa Tecla is part of the metropolitan area of El Salvador's capital, San Salvador. Santa
Tecla experienced two earthquakes in 2001. In just five seconds, landslides caused more than
700 deaths, displaced 20% of the city's land, and severely damaged 38% of the infrastructure.
The government of Santa Tecla thought deeply about what could be done to transform the
city and make it disaster-proof. The Santa Tecla government then realized the need to start
designing urban land management in a more responsible and sustainable manner. In this
regard, the government recognized the need for citizens to understand the importance of what
the government was doing or the small changes that would occur by encouraging
participation in the 'Mesas de Ciudadanos' (citizens' groups) program, which brings together
different stakeholder organizations in periodic discussions and decision-making.
Economic Resilience
Economic resilience refers to the economic diversity of communities such as the type of
employment, number of businesses, and their ability to function normally after a disaster.
Economic resilience in the concept of disaster resilience contains four definitions, namely:
(a) Robustness, the ability to avoid direct and indirect economic losses; (b) Redundancy, the
level of untapped or excess economic capacity; (c) Resourcefulness - stabilization measures;
and (d) Rapidity - the speed of return to pre-disaster conditions (Bruneau et al., 2003).
Australia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and China have all made efforts to improve
economic resilience after disasters. The city of Cairns, Australia sets up a regular budget
intended for disaster preparedness and response. The city has an annual operating budget that
includes funding for disaster management units, coordination centers, volunteer services and
community awareness programs. In recent years, its annual budget includes allocations for
the construction of buildings, emergency response vehicles and equipment, disaster risk
assessment software, flood warning network upgrades and drainage and flood mitigation
investments. These are the city's commitment to disaster risk reduction. These efforts are
complemented by investments and partnerships at the national level and also involve
professionals in the built environment, the private sector and academic institutions. Similar to
Australia, three other countries - the Philippines, China and Sri Lanka - also have policies to
support investment in disaster risk reduction. Since 2001, cities in the Philippines have been
required to allocate 5% of their local government budgets to disaster funds. Under the
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010; cities in the Philippines can spend
70% of this allocation on preparedness and relief/reserve equipment. Sri Lanka, through the
Ministry of Disaster Management announced that in 2011 the government allocated Rs. 8
billion for flood control programs in the capital, Colombo, while launching a safe urban
planning program to minimize disasters as part of the Resilient Cities Campaign. The funds
were used to clean canals, reconstruct drainage systems, and for other measures to prevent
flooding in Colombo. In China, provincial governors of two disaster-prone Chinese provinces
(Sichuan and Yunnan) committed additional resources to disaster reduction. The Sichuan
Provincial Government invested 2 billion Yuan to improve the local geological disaster
prevention system. The Yunnan Provincial Government, meanwhile, committed to invest at
least 10 billion yuan over ten years in local disaster prevention and assessment systems.
Social Resilience
Social resilience refers to the demographic profile of a community by gender, age,
ethnicity, socioeconomic status and other groupings as well as its social capital profile.
Although difficult to measure, social capital refers to the sense (values, norms and culture) of
community, the ability of groups of citizens to adapt and the sense of attachment to a place.
Strengthening social resilience in disaster management has been applied by Japan, Nepal and
China.
Japan has a "watch and learn" pattern where children and communities learn what they
call Mountain and City Risk as early as possible. Starting at the kindergarten level, Japanese
schools implement education on how to detect and react in disaster situations, conduct regular
disaster response drills and use "disaster watch". This time-consuming investment saved
many lives in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. One of the cities that implemented
this program is Saijo City. Saijo City is one of the cities with an old population in Japan. This
old population is a major problem in disaster response in Saijo City. To be more disaster
resilient, Saijo City needs the energy of young people who are not many. Therefore, Saijo
City implemented a disaster risk awareness program targeting school children. For 12 years,
the Saijo City government has focused on projects to improve the quality of the city's
physical environment, and "mountain and city observation" projects for children. Young
residents meet with the elderly to learn together about the risks faced by Saijo City and to
draw lessons from the 2004 typhoon disaster. Saijo City has developed a 'mountain and city
watching' handbook and established a teachers' association for disaster education and a
children's club for disaster prevention. On top of all this, a national disaster safety day was
implemented. Japan celebrates Disaster Prevention Day every year on September 1, the
anniversary of the great Kanto earthquake of 1923, and March 11, the anniversary of the
Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami.
Apart from Japan, Nepal and China are countries that also observe disaster days. In
Nepal, January 15 marks the anniversary of the great Nepal earthquake of 1934. In
Kathmandu, political leaders and prominent figures commemorated the event with activities
such as street parades, shaking table demonstrations, exhibitions on disaster-resistant
construction, street plays, interactive seminars, poster, art and other competitions, and
presentations for children. An earthquake simulation exercise was the highlight of the
commemorative event, with wide public participation and coverage by local media. China has
designated May 12 as National Disaster Safety Day, to commemorate the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake.
Disaster risk reduction and disaster resilience are integral parts of environmental,
economic, social and political sustainable development (ICLEI, 2010). To improve
governance towards resilience, there are five things that need to be considered, which include
(a) Understanding for whom the government regulates or manages;
(b) Use of a territorial approach in governance;
(c) Use of appropriate tools or methods for efficient land management; (d) Use of ICT and e-
governance; and (5) Implementation of innovative governance.
Keys to Successful Disaster Resilient City Governance
Cities that have been able to strengthen their resilience to disasters have provided some
of the following learning about how to manage cities to become disaster resilient. There are at
least ten key factors that determine whether a city becomes disaster resilient, as follows:
Having a Disaster Resilience Organization
Organizations that support the resilience of cities to disasters are needed to contribute to
the goal of sustainable urban development, a holistic approach in understanding potential
threats, and disaster risk governance that should be adopted. In this context, it is important to
involve decision-makers such as local governments, various officials and departments,
academia, business groups, and communities. Participation of these key groups and actors in
planning, implementation and monitoring, and effective organizational structures are
prerequisites for sound decision-making and practice of disaster risk reduction actions. This
will foster collaboration and partnership among all stakeholders for disaster risk prevention,
mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation. Recognizing that the
appropriate organizational structure will vary within and between countries, there are at least
three things that need to be considered, namely as follows:
Build and strengthen institutional capacity and coordination at the local level;
Building alliances and/or networks with all relevant stakeholder groups; and
Establish legislative frameworks and action mechanisms to achieve resilience.
Identify, Understand, and Utilize Current and Future Risk Scenarios
It is based on the premise that disaster risk management needs to be based on an
understanding of disaster risk scenarios across all dimensions of hazard characteristics, risk
exposure, capacity and vulnerability. Analysis and measurement of risk scenarios are
essential for informed decision-making, prioritizing programs or projects, and planning for
disaster risk reduction measures (prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response). The
need for both can be eliminated if local governments have a clear understanding of the risks
they face and fully discuss with the public and other stakeholders about risk scenarios and the
implementation of meaningful disaster risk reduction measures. There are two things that can
be done at this point, which are as follows:
Identify the most likely and most severe scenarios (worst case); and
Utilize information and measurement results from risk scenarios to make development
decisions by involving stakeholders.
Strengthening Financial Capacity for Disaster Resilience
Strengthening financial capacity can be done by including specific resources and specific
mechanisms that can be used to increase resilience. Financial resources can come from
municipal revenues, local or sectoral national distributions and allocations, public-private
partnerships and technical cooperation, as well as civil society and external organizations.
Financial mechanisms can include resilience financing and resilience self-help embedded in
broader development planning and spending. There are at least three ways in which efforts
can be made to increase awareness and financial capacity to build disaster resilient cities, as
follows:
Recognize the opportunity that building resilience to disasters equates to contributing to a
sound economic strategy;
Ensure a budget for resilience; and
Disseminate risk information for development decisions.
Development of Disaster Resilient City Design
Not all hazards or potential disasters can cause a disaster. A disaster occurs when a
potential disaster results in devastation that a community is unable to cope with on its own
without assistance from others. Therefore, preventive measures can help build better
resilience capacity, avoid and/or minimize disruption and destruction of networks and
infrastructure, which can lead to severe social and economic consequences. In addition,
integrating resilience concepts into infrastructure and socio-economic planning and
development will protect the city's development investments. In the context of developing
disaster-resilient urban design, there are several things that need to be considered and done,
namely as follows:
Place urban planning and land use management at the core of urban resilience through
land zoning and disaster-aware planning;
Mapping systemic and specific vulnerabilities; and
Mainstream resilience into ongoing updates of city master plans and sectoral strategies.
Protecting Natural Buffers to Improve Ecosystem Functions
Ecosystems provide essential services for disaster risk reduction as protection and
barriers against disaster threats and hazards. Ecosystems are central to disaster mitigation by
offering, for example, regulation against flooding and protecting steep slopes from potential
landslides. Ecosystems also increase the resilience of communities to withstand, cope with
and recover from disasters by providing multiple benefits such as food, firewood, clean water
and the like. Degraded ecosystems will not be able to provide such mitigation benefits and
resources, which in turn significantly increases community vulnerability. The process of
urban expansion changes the ecosystem fabric and often generates new risks and new
vulnerabilities. Recognizing the economic value and multiple benefits of healthy ecosystems
that act as natural buffers is important to reduce risks and contribute to the resilience and
sustainability of cities. Relevant ecosystem services may include, but are not limited to: water
retention or water infiltration; afforestation; urban vegetation; floodplains; mangroves, and
other coastal vegetation. Some things that need to be considered in efforts to increase
resilience through ecosystems are as follows:
Raising awareness of the impact of change environmental and ecosystem degradation on
disaster risk by recognizing the value and benefits of ecosystem services for disaster risk
prevention, protecting and or enhancing them as part of disaster risk reduction strategies
for the city;
Promote management of critical ecosystems to strengthen resilience to disasters;
Strengthen existing ecosystem management based on risk scenario assessments; and
Anticipate changes from climate trends, urbanization and make plans that allow
ecosystem services to remain.
Strengthening Institutional Capacity
Understanding the city's institutional background on past efforts towards risk reduction
or management and resilience building can help detect current gaps in local capacity to
coordinate and take action towards disaster prevention, mitigation, response and recovery.
Another advantage is to be able to identify the best and most appropriate approach effective to
strengthen relevant institutions in managing disaster risk. The institutions in question are the
central government and local governments. Other groups also have a role in disaster risk
management by complementing and supporting government measures. These groups include
the private sector that provides public services according to local needs, such as telephone,
water, energy, and health, as well as volunteer capacity or equipment in the event of a
disaster; owners and operators of industrial facilities; building owners (individuals or
companies); NGOs; professionals and academics, employers and labor organizations; and
cultural institutions and civil society organizations. Some things to note, are as follows:
Identifying the specific nature of each disaster risk and mapping the characteristics and
support needs of each institution. This requires reaching a common understanding of the
roles and responsibilities of each;
Building local capacity and strengthening participation in disaster management and
resilience building; and
Ensure consistency of disaster risk data and information among stakeholders. This can be
done by creating and implementing an information and data framework for resilience and
disaster risk reduction efforts.
Identifying, Understanding and Strengthening Social Capacity
Communities should take part in collective efforts to create disaster-resilient cities
through education, training and disaster awareness programs. All components of the
community must understand the hazards and risks they face, so that they can prepare and take
steps to cope with potential disasters. Education and capacity building programs are also key
to mobilizing citizen and community participation in disaster management strategies, such as
improving community preparedness and response to local early warnings. Some things that
need to be considered in improving community capacity to ensure disaster resilience are as
follows:
Establish a comprehensive response unit at the local level;
Develop risk reduction and resilience information;
Integrate disaster risk reduction and resilience into formal education and other training
programs;
Improving public education and awareness through information dissemination through the
business sector and media; and
Establish and maintain open access to data for disaster preparedness and response.
Improving Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure is an important part of urban governance and especially in relation to
emergency response conditions. Therefore, the government needs to pay special attention to
safety needs in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure so that it can continue to be
operational during emergencies. The main infrastructure required for city operations such as
transportation (roads, railways, airports and other ports), vehicle fuel supply lines,
telecommunications systems, utility systems, hospitals and health facilities, educational
institutions and school facilities, food supply chains, police and fire services, and so on. Some
things to note are as follows:
Measurement of critical infrastructure capacity and adequacy;
Strengthening vulnerable infrastructure (infrastructure replacement and procurement);
Build alliances with the private sector to leverage technical and financial resources and
ensure that private investments follow environmental and risk reduction norms; and
Recognize the need for service relevance and operational priorities during and after a
disaster.
Ensuring the Effectiveness of Disaster Response
Well-developed preparedness and response plans can not only save lives and property,
but also contribute to resilience and post-disaster recovery by reducing disaster impacts.
Preparedness efforts, early warning systems and communication systems will help ensure that
cities, communities and individuals threatened by hazards can act in sufficient time and
appropriately to reduce injuries, loss of life and damage to property or the environment.
Sustainability can be achieved if the community itself and local authorities understand the
importance and need for emergency preparedness and response at the local level. Some things
to consider are as follows:
Create and improve preparedness plans, including training;
Strengthening early warning systems; and
Improve the city's emergency response services.
Accelerate City Recovery and Build Back Better
Cities are built by multiple entities over decades or centuries, and are therefore very
difficult to rebuild in a short period of time. Until recently, there was a priority debate
between the need to rebuild quickly and rebuild safely and sustainably. A planned and
participatory recovery and reconstruction process will help the city to be able to reactivate
city life as soon as possible, restoring and rebuilding damaged infrastructure and restoring the
city's economy, empowering its citizens to rebuild their lives, homes and livelihoods.
Reconstruction should start as soon as possible, even before a potential disaster becomes a
disaster. Essentially, cities can foresee needs, establish operational mechanisms and assign
resources required as preparation and mitigation efforts, if supported by capable systems.
Recovery and rehabilitation can be planned long before a disaster occurs. Leadership,
coordination and funding are important parts of the effort. Some things to consider are as
follows:
Recovery must be addressed in multiple aspects and dimensions;
Include affected populations in efforts to define needs and recovery plans;
Recovery is an opportunity to build back better and enhance development;
Seeking resources, strengthening alliances and ensuring sustainability; and
Integrate disaster risk reduction in all investment decisions for recovery and
reconstruction.
Challenges in managing Disaster Resilient Cities
GSDRC (2014) outlines some of the challenges of managing disaster resilient cities in
terms of adaptive capacity, poverty and inequality, political economy, integration of disaster
resilience in aid operations and policies, disaster resilience analysis and measurement,
environmental support and government action, and financial conditions.
Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity relates to the capacity of systems, institutions, people and other
organisms to be able to adjust to potential damage, take benefit from opportunities or respond
to possible consequences (IPCC, 2014). Adaptive capacity includes prevention strategies,
which involve making choices to avoid events, and impact minimization strategies. Existing
research has highlighted that adaptive capacities are interrelated, and no single factor can
explain the level of disaster resilience in any context. For example, the role of indigenous
knowledge must be understood as closely linked to socio-economic variables that support or
undermine adaptation efforts.
Poverty and Inequality Conditions
The capacity of individuals, families or communities to prepare for, withstand and
respond to hazards or crises is enabled and constrained by social status, income and ethnicity
(Bosher et al., 2007). There is a common understanding that it is the poor who will suffer the
greatest losses from disasters (Oxfam, 2013; Shepherd et al., 2013). In 2008, the United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) noted that 94% of all people killed by
disasters between 1975-2000 were from low- or lower-middle-income groups (UNISDR,
2008). Disasters deprive people of assets and livelihoods, reproducing poverty and inequality
(UNISDR, 2008; Shepherd et al., 2013). Therefore, good disaster risk management can
reduce the impact of disasters, especially on the lower middle class (Shepherd et al., 2013).
Research in eight villages in coastal Andhra Pradesh in southern India concluded that
caste is a key factor determining access to resources essential to aid recovery from disasters
(Bosher et al., 2007). In this case, 'lower' castes lacked access to the assets, public facilities
and political networks necessary to aid their recovery. Gender is a tangible form of inequality
that shapes vulnerability to disasters (Ganapati, 2012, 2013; OCHA, 2012; Oxfam UK, 2012;
Turnbull et al., 2013). For women and girls, injustices in everyday life, not just during
disasters, tend to create greater risk, reduce life chances, and deepen material and non-
material losses (Bradshaw & Fordham, 2013). In addition, there is also great concern
expressed in the literature about the vulnerability of other high-risk populations: children, the
elderly, and people with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Such groups can be disadvantaged
and discriminated against, and can face a range of inequalities that magnify their vulnerability
risk (Peek et al., 2010). On the one hand, these disadvantaged groups are usually more
exposed and vulnerable to hazards. However, they can also contribute to building disaster
resilience (Oliver-Smith et al., 2012; Oxfam, 2013; Turnbull et al., 2013).
Political Economy
A number of aspects of a country's political economy can affect disaster resilience. One
of these is regulations relating to urban building codes and land use, poor regulations, or poor
enforcement of regulations, can create economic and social conditions that put vulnerable
groups at greater risk and that are difficult to remedy (GFDRR, 2010; Turnbull et al., 2013;
Wilkinson, 2012a). Another important issue, documented in several case studies, is how
corruption and patronage systems limit adaptive capacity and weaken disaster resilience. One
study in Bangladesh found that pre- and post-disaster interventions were co-opted and used to
increase the assets of political elites to the detriment of low-income groups (Mahmud &
Prowse, 2012). In many developing countries, public policy and political commitment to
disaster resilience is suboptimal. In a meta-review of evidence, Wilkinson (2012a) attributes
this to a lack of political interest and will, unfavorable economic and political incentives,
information gaps, and coordination problems.
Integration of Disaster Resilience in Aid Operation and Policy
In many cases, disaster resilience efforts are hampered by political economy, power and
inequality, including gender inequality (OCHA, 2012; Oxfam, 2013; UNISDR, 2011).
Therefore, Oxfam (2013) recommends a lens that focuses on politics and equality to aid
resilience, which focuses on several aspects including the following:
Social insurance and other programs that target disadvantaged groups who need greater
support and services to have equal opportunities;
Build pro-poor institutions at all levels, which represent and respond to the needs and
capacities of the most vulnerable;
Ensure rights and accountability, and the ability of women and men to assert their rights
and hold power holders accountable through participation in decision-making at all levels;
and
Provide free essential basic services for health and education, and social protection
Disaster Resilience Analysis and Measurement
Several organizations have developed guidelines for measuring disaster resilience. One
widely used guideline is the resilience risk framework, which uses the five dimensions of
resilience identified in the Hyogo Framework for Action (Twigg, 2009). These five
dimensions include governance, risk assessment, knowledge and education, risk management
and vulnerability reduction, and disaster preparedness and response. Other organizations'
frameworks measure different dimensions of resilience. Oxfam, for example, recently
developed a multi-dimensional framework that incorporates livelihoods, innovation capacity,
access to emergency resources, integrity of the natural environment, and social and
institutional capacity (Hughes et al., 2013).
Environmental Support and Government Action
In this context there are three things that need attention, namely: multi-level and multi-
stakeholder working in an enabling environment, supportive actions from the national
government, and supportive actions from local governments.
Multi-level and multi-stakeholder working in an enabling environment
Group interventions and participation in disaster risk reduction at different scales and levels
of action are critical. The policy and institutional environment that supports long-term
disaster resilience should also involve governments supporting the capacity of individuals,
civil society, the private sector and at-risk populations to manage and adapt to risk. Based on
desk and field research in disaster-prone areas in three countries, Reaching Resilience (n.d.)
found that a multi-stakeholder, multi-level approach is effective when integrating disaster risk
reduction, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction in its intervention efforts, as
follows:
Understand and create dialog about people at risk mapping;
Explore appropriate institutional and governance contexts;
Analyzing strengths and relationships between stakeholders;
Supportive actions from local government
Turnbull et al. (2013) provide detailed guidance on risk governance at the local level. To
strengthen risk prevention, efforts are needed to improve local stakeholders' access to public
information, hazard mapping, use of forecasting and early warning systems. Strategies for
dealing with high-impact disasters include the development of disaster management
committees, emergency services, emergency plans and emergency funds, as well as social
insurance mechanisms. Strategies to protect assets and services include developing disaster-
resistant building techniques for houses, schools and hospitals, and investing in water and
sanitation technologies for disaster risk reduction.
Financial Condition
Efforts to improve disaster resilience are typically characterized by shortcomings in
terms of funding, cost and effectiveness of interventions for resilience that are still limited,
yet the need is growing (DFID, 2011; GFDRR, 2010). Multi-year funding for disaster
resilience is often recommended, especially for protracted crises (Frankenberger et al., 2012).
Despite these challenges, several studies have shown that building disaster resilience is more
cost-effective than a late response (Cabot Venton et al., 2013; GFDRR, 2010). The cost-
effectiveness of prevention can essentially be improved through efforts, not least on open
access to information about hazards or risk exposure, provision of disaster infrastructure and
services, other disaster investments, and stakeholder engagement in disaster risk
management.
Conclusion
Ensuring a city has disaster-resilient urban governance is not an easy task. There are
many factors that need to be considered and are interrelated with each other. Disaster resilient
city governance is strongly influenced by infrastructure resilience, institutional resilience,
economic resilience and social resilience. These four things must be managed properly and
continuously in order to create a disaster resilient city. From the ten key success factors of
disaster resilient governance that have been presented in the discussion session, it can be
concluded that awareness of the importance of disaster mitigation is the initial guide to the
success of disaster resilient city governance. Besides the urgency of the existence of
leadership, communication, coordination, participation and information disclosure are also
considered as the backbone for the sustainability of disaster resilient governance.
Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure resilience refers to reducing the vulnerability of structures such as
buildings and transportation systems. Infrastructure resilience also refers to protective
capacities such as maintenance facilities health, vulnerability of buildings to hazards, critical
infrastructure, availability of roads for evacuation, post-disaster supply lines and community
capacity for response and recovery. One country that is trying to strengthen infrastructure
resilience in disaster management is the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands is one of the
areas that is often visited by Atlantic hurricanes. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan, the worst storm in
86 years, hit the largest island, Grand Cayman and damaged 90% of the buildings (Young,
2004). Electricity, water and communications were disrupted for months in some areas of the
Cayman Islands. The island then began the process of rebuilding on a large scale, and within
a national strategic framework for disaster risk reduction. Among other efforts, a 124-bed
hospital was built to Category 5 hurricane standards. This health facility remained functional
during and after Hurricane Ivan, alongside efforts to provide shelter for more than 1,000
people (CY Gov, 2005).
Institutional Resilience
Institutional resilience refers to the systems, governmental and non-governmental that
manage a community. Institutions, whether built to address disaster risk or not, can influence
the vulnerability of different community groups through several pathways and conditions
(Lebel et al., 2006). In the conceptualization of disaster risk, the influence of institutionalized
capacities and practices on disaster risk management is also influenced by ecological and
social resilience and the attributes of the disaster event itself.
In disaster risk management, the institutional and political development context is geared
towards answering five questions: when do disasters occur; who and what is at risk; who is
responsible; how does disaster risk change; and how to evaluate (IFA, 2006). Examples of
institutional resilience efforts have been made by Thailand and El Savador. Thailand through
the Baan Mankong program attempted to improve the condition of informal settlements by
launching an initiative to upgrade and improve the condition of slums and squatter
settlements. Thailand's slum upgrading and improvement program adopts a community-based
approach to solving the problems of unsafe housing and poor living conditions, and puts
residents at the heart of the process (Archer, 2012). The Baan Mankong program channels
funds in the form of infrastructure subsidies and housing loans directly to low-income
communities in informal settlements. The funding comes almost entirely from domestic
resources - a combination of national government, local government and community
contributions. Under this national program, people in illegal settlements can obtain legal land
tenure through various means such as direct purchase from the landowner or moving to
another location provided by the government.
Another example of efforts to improve institutional resilience is that of Santa Tecla.
Santa Tecla is part of the metropolitan area of El Salvador's capital, San Salvador. Santa
Tecla experienced two earthquakes in 2001. In just five seconds, landslides caused more than
700 deaths, displaced 20% of the city's land, and severely damaged 38% of the infrastructure.
The government of Santa Tecla thought deeply about what could be done to transform the
city and make it disaster-proof. The Santa Tecla government then realized the need to start
designing urban land management in a more responsible and sustainable manner. In this
regard, the government recognized the need for citizens to understand the importance of what
the government was doing or the small changes that would occur by encouraging
participation in the 'Mesas de Ciudadanos' (citizens' groups) program, which brings together
different stakeholder organizations in periodic discussions and decision-making.
Economic Resilience
Economic resilience refers to the economic diversity of communities such as the type of
employment, number of businesses, and their ability to function normally after a disaster.
Economic resilience in the concept of disaster resilience contains four definitions, namely:
(a) Robustness, the ability to avoid direct and indirect economic losses; (b) Redundancy, the
level of untapped or excess economic capacity; (c) Resourcefulness - stabilization measures;
and (d) Rapidity - the speed of return to pre-disaster conditions (Bruneau et al., 2003).
Australia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and China have all made efforts to improve
economic resilience after disasters. The city of Cairns, Australia sets up a regular budget
intended for disaster preparedness and response. The city has an annual operating budget that
includes funding for disaster management units, coordination centers, volunteer services and
community awareness programs. In recent years, its annual budget includes allocations for
the construction of buildings, emergency response vehicles and equipment, disaster risk
assessment software, flood warning network upgrades and drainage and flood mitigation
investments. These are the city's commitment to disaster risk reduction. These efforts are
complemented by investments and partnerships at the national level and also involve
professionals in the built environment, the private sector and academic institutions. Similar to
Australia, three other countries - the Philippines, China and Sri Lanka - also have policies to
support investment in disaster risk reduction. Since 2001, cities in the Philippines have been
required to allocate 5% of their local government budgets to disaster funds. Under the
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010; cities in the Philippines can spend
70% of this allocation on preparedness and relief/reserve equipment. Sri Lanka, through the
Ministry of Disaster Management announced that in 2011 the government allocated Rs. 8
billion for flood control programs in the capital, Colombo, while launching a safe urban
planning program to minimize disasters as part of the Resilient Cities Campaign. The funds
were used to clean canals, reconstruct drainage systems, and for other measures to prevent
flooding in Colombo. In China, provincial governors of two disaster-prone Chinese provinces
(Sichuan and Yunnan) committed additional resources to disaster reduction. The Sichuan
Provincial Government invested 2 billion Yuan to improve the local geological disaster
prevention system. The Yunnan Provincial Government, meanwhile, committed to invest at
least 10 billion yuan over ten years in local disaster prevention and assessment systems.
Social Resilience
Social resilience refers to the demographic profile of a community by gender, age,
ethnicity, socioeconomic status and other groupings as well as its social capital profile.
Although difficult to measure, social capital refers to the sense (values, norms and culture) of
community, the ability of groups of citizens to adapt and the sense of attachment to a place.
Strengthening social resilience in disaster management has been applied by Japan, Nepal and
China.
Japan has a "watch and learn" pattern where children and communities learn what they
call Mountain and City Risk as early as possible. Starting at the kindergarten level, Japanese
schools implement education on how to detect and react in disaster situations, conduct regular
disaster response drills and use "disaster watch". This time-consuming investment saved
many lives in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. One of the cities that implemented
this program is Saijo City. Saijo City is one of the cities with an old population in Japan. This
old population is a major problem in disaster response in Saijo City. To be more disaster
resilient, Saijo City needs the energy of young people who are not many. Therefore, Saijo
City implemented a disaster risk awareness program targeting school children. For 12 years,
the Saijo City government has focused on projects to improve the quality of the city's
physical environment, and "mountain and city observation" projects for children. Young
residents meet with the elderly to learn together about the risks faced by Saijo City and to
draw lessons from the 2004 typhoon disaster. Saijo City has developed a 'mountain and city
watching' handbook and established a teachers' association for disaster education and a
children's club for disaster prevention. On top of all this, a national disaster safety day was
implemented. Japan celebrates Disaster Prevention Day every year on September 1, the
anniversary of the great Kanto earthquake of 1923, and March 11, the anniversary of the
Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami.
Apart from Japan, Nepal and China are countries that also observe disaster days. In
Nepal, January 15 marks the anniversary of the great Nepal earthquake of 1934. In
Kathmandu, political leaders and prominent figures commemorated the event with activities
such as street parades, shaking table demonstrations, exhibitions on disaster-resistant
construction, street plays, interactive seminars, poster, art and other competitions, and
presentations for children. An earthquake simulation exercise was the highlight of the
commemorative event, with wide public participation and coverage by local media. China has
designated May 12 as National Disaster Safety Day, to commemorate the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake.
Disaster risk reduction and disaster resilience are integral parts of environmental,
economic, social and political sustainable development (ICLEI, 2010). To improve
governance towards resilience, there are five things that need to be considered, which include
(a) Understanding for whom the government regulates or manages;
(b) Use of a territorial approach in governance;
(c) Use of appropriate tools or methods for efficient land management; (d) Use of ICT and e-
governance; and (5) Implementation of innovative governance.
Keys to Successful Disaster Resilient City Governance
Cities that have been able to strengthen their resilience to disasters have provided some
of the following learning about how to manage cities to become disaster resilient. There are at
least ten key factors that determine whether a city becomes disaster resilient, as follows:
Having a Disaster Resilience Organization
Organizations that support the resilience of cities to disasters are needed to contribute to
the goal of sustainable urban development, a holistic approach in understanding potential
threats, and disaster risk governance that should be adopted. In this context, it is important to
involve decision-makers such as local governments, various officials and departments,
academia, business groups, and communities. Participation of these key groups and actors in
planning, implementation and monitoring, and effective organizational structures are
prerequisites for sound decision-making and practice of disaster risk reduction actions. This
will foster collaboration and partnership among all stakeholders for disaster risk prevention,
mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation. Recognizing that the
appropriate organizational structure will vary within and between countries, there are at least
three things that need to be considered, namely as follows:
Build and strengthen institutional capacity and coordination at the local level;
Building alliances and/or networks with all relevant stakeholder groups; and
Establish legislative frameworks and action mechanisms to achieve resilience.
Identify, Understand, and Utilize Current and Future Risk Scenarios
It is based on the premise that disaster risk management needs to be based on an
understanding of disaster risk scenarios across all dimensions of hazard characteristics, risk
exposure, capacity and vulnerability. Analysis and measurement of risk scenarios are
essential for informed decision-making, prioritizing programs or projects, and planning for
disaster risk reduction measures (prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response). The
need for both can be eliminated if local governments have a clear understanding of the risks
they face and fully discuss with the public and other stakeholders about risk scenarios and the
implementation of meaningful disaster risk reduction measures. There are two things that can
be done at this point, which are as follows:
Identify the most likely and most severe scenarios (worst case); and
Utilize information and measurement results from risk scenarios to make development
decisions by involving stakeholders.
Strengthening Financial Capacity for Disaster Resilience
Strengthening financial capacity can be done by including specific resources and specific
mechanisms that can be used to increase resilience. Financial resources can come from
municipal revenues, local or sectoral national distributions and allocations, public-private
partnerships and technical cooperation, as well as civil society and external organizations.
Financial mechanisms can include resilience financing and resilience self-help embedded in
broader development planning and spending. There are at least three ways in which efforts
can be made to increase awareness and financial capacity to build disaster resilient cities, as
follows:
Recognize the opportunity that building resilience to disasters equates to contributing to a
sound economic strategy;
Ensure a budget for resilience; and
Disseminate risk information for development decisions.
Development of Disaster Resilient City Design
Not all hazards or potential disasters can cause a disaster. A disaster occurs when a
potential disaster results in devastation that a community is unable to cope with on its own
without assistance from others. Therefore, preventive measures can help build better
resilience capacity, avoid and/or minimize disruption and destruction of networks and
infrastructure, which can lead to severe social and economic consequences. In addition,
integrating resilience concepts into infrastructure and socio-economic planning and
development will protect the city's development investments. In the context of developing
disaster-resilient urban design, there are several things that need to be considered and done,
namely as follows:
Place urban planning and land use management at the core of urban resilience through
land zoning and disaster-aware planning;
Mapping systemic and specific vulnerabilities; and
Mainstream resilience into ongoing updates of city master plans and sectoral strategies.
Protecting Natural Buffers to Improve Ecosystem Functions
Ecosystems provide essential services for disaster risk reduction as protection and
barriers against disaster threats and hazards. Ecosystems are central to disaster mitigation by
offering, for example, regulation against flooding and protecting steep slopes from potential
landslides. Ecosystems also increase the resilience of communities to withstand, cope with
and recover from disasters by providing multiple benefits such as food, firewood, clean water
and the like. Degraded ecosystems will not be able to provide such mitigation benefits and
resources, which in turn significantly increases community vulnerability. The process of
urban expansion changes the ecosystem fabric and often generates new risks and new
vulnerabilities. Recognizing the economic value and multiple benefits of healthy ecosystems
that act as natural buffers is important to reduce risks and contribute to the resilience and
sustainability of cities. Relevant ecosystem services may include, but are not limited to: water
retention or water infiltration; afforestation; urban vegetation; floodplains; mangroves, and
other coastal vegetation. Some things that need to be considered in efforts to increase
resilience through ecosystems are as follows:
Raising awareness of the impact of change environmental and ecosystem degradation on
disaster risk by recognizing the value and benefits of ecosystem services for disaster risk
prevention, protecting and or enhancing them as part of disaster risk reduction strategies
for the city;
Promote management of critical ecosystems to strengthen resilience to disasters;
Strengthen existing ecosystem management based on risk scenario assessments; and
Anticipate changes from climate trends, urbanization and make plans that allow
ecosystem services to remain.
Strengthening Institutional Capacity
Understanding the city's institutional background on past efforts towards risk reduction
or management and resilience building can help detect current gaps in local capacity to
coordinate and take action towards disaster prevention, mitigation, response and recovery.
Another advantage is to be able to identify the best and most appropriate approach effective to
strengthen relevant institutions in managing disaster risk. The institutions in question are the
central government and local governments. Other groups also have a role in disaster risk
management by complementing and supporting government measures. These groups include
the private sector that provides public services according to local needs, such as telephone,
water, energy, and health, as well as volunteer capacity or equipment in the event of a
disaster; owners and operators of industrial facilities; building owners (individuals or
companies); NGOs; professionals and academics, employers and labor organizations; and
cultural institutions and civil society organizations. Some things to note, are as follows:
Identifying the specific nature of each disaster risk and mapping the characteristics and
support needs of each institution. This requires reaching a common understanding of the
roles and responsibilities of each;
Building local capacity and strengthening participation in disaster management and
resilience building; and
Ensure consistency of disaster risk data and information among stakeholders. This can be
done by creating and implementing an information and data framework for resilience and
disaster risk reduction efforts.
Identifying, Understanding and Strengthening Social Capacity
Communities should take part in collective efforts to create disaster-resilient cities
through education, training and disaster awareness programs. All components of the
community must understand the hazards and risks they face, so that they can prepare and take
steps to cope with potential disasters. Education and capacity building programs are also key
to mobilizing citizen and community participation in disaster management strategies, such as
improving community preparedness and response to local early warnings. Some things that
need to be considered in improving community capacity to ensure disaster resilience are as
follows:
Establish a comprehensive response unit at the local level;
Develop risk reduction and resilience information;
Integrate disaster risk reduction and resilience into formal education and other training
programs;
Improving public education and awareness through information dissemination through the
business sector and media; and
Establish and maintain open access to data for disaster preparedness and response.
Improving Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure is an important part of urban governance and especially in relation to
emergency response conditions. Therefore, the government needs to pay special attention to
safety needs in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure so that it can continue to be
operational during emergencies. The main infrastructure required for city operations such as
transportation (roads, railways, airports and other ports), vehicle fuel supply lines,
telecommunications systems, utility systems, hospitals and health facilities, educational
institutions and school facilities, food supply chains, police and fire services, and so on. Some
things to note are as follows:
Measurement of critical infrastructure capacity and adequacy;
Strengthening vulnerable infrastructure (infrastructure replacement and procurement);
Build alliances with the private sector to leverage technical and financial resources and
ensure that private investments follow environmental and risk reduction norms; and
Recognize the need for service relevance and operational priorities during and after a
disaster.
Ensuring the Effectiveness of Disaster Response
Well-developed preparedness and response plans can not only save lives and property,
but also contribute to resilience and post-disaster recovery by reducing disaster impacts.
Preparedness efforts, early warning systems and communication systems will help ensure that
cities, communities and individuals threatened by hazards can act in sufficient time and
appropriately to reduce injuries, loss of life and damage to property or the environment.
Sustainability can be achieved if the community itself and local authorities understand the
importance and need for emergency preparedness and response at the local level. Some things
to consider are as follows:
Create and improve preparedness plans, including training;
Strengthening early warning systems; and
Improve the city's emergency response services.
Accelerate City Recovery and Build Back Better
Cities are built by multiple entities over decades or centuries, and are therefore very
difficult to rebuild in a short period of time. Until recently, there was a priority debate
between the need to rebuild quickly and rebuild safely and sustainably. A planned and
participatory recovery and reconstruction process will help the city to be able to reactivate
city life as soon as possible, restoring and rebuilding damaged infrastructure and restoring the
city's economy, empowering its citizens to rebuild their lives, homes and livelihoods.
Reconstruction should start as soon as possible, even before a potential disaster becomes a
disaster. Essentially, cities can foresee needs, establish operational mechanisms and assign
resources required as preparation and mitigation efforts, if supported by capable systems.
Recovery and rehabilitation can be planned long before a disaster occurs. Leadership,
coordination and funding are important parts of the effort. Some things to consider are as
follows:
Recovery must be addressed in multiple aspects and dimensions;
Include affected populations in efforts to define needs and recovery plans;
Recovery is an opportunity to build back better and enhance development;
Seeking resources, strengthening alliances and ensuring sustainability; and
Integrate disaster risk reduction in all investment decisions for recovery and
reconstruction.
Challenges in managing Disaster Resilient Cities
GSDRC (2014) outlines some of the challenges of managing disaster resilient cities in
terms of adaptive capacity, poverty and inequality, political economy, integration of disaster
resilience in aid operations and policies, disaster resilience analysis and measurement,
environmental support and government action, and financial conditions.
Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity relates to the capacity of systems, institutions, people and other
organisms to be able to adjust to potential damage, take benefit from opportunities or respond
to possible consequences (IPCC, 2014). Adaptive capacity includes prevention strategies,
which involve making choices to avoid events, and impact minimization strategies. Existing
research has highlighted that adaptive capacities are interrelated, and no single factor can
explain the level of disaster resilience in any context. For example, the role of indigenous
knowledge must be understood as closely linked to socio-economic variables that support or
undermine adaptation efforts.
Poverty and Inequality Conditions
The capacity of individuals, families or communities to prepare for, withstand and
respond to hazards or crises is enabled and constrained by social status, income and ethnicity
(Bosher et al., 2007). There is a common understanding that it is the poor who will suffer the
greatest losses from disasters (Oxfam, 2013; Shepherd et al., 2013). In 2008, the United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) noted that 94% of all people killed by
disasters between 1975-2000 were from low- or lower-middle-income groups (UNISDR,
2008). Disasters deprive people of assets and livelihoods, reproducing poverty and inequality
(UNISDR, 2008; Shepherd et al., 2013). Therefore, good disaster risk management can
reduce the impact of disasters, especially on the lower middle class (Shepherd et al., 2013).
Research in eight villages in coastal Andhra Pradesh in southern India concluded that
caste is a key factor determining access to resources essential to aid recovery from disasters
(Bosher et al., 2007). In this case, 'lower' castes lacked access to the assets, public facilities
and political networks necessary to aid their recovery. Gender is a tangible form of inequality
that shapes vulnerability to disasters (Ganapati, 2012, 2013; OCHA, 2012; Oxfam UK, 2012;
Turnbull et al., 2013). For women and girls, injustices in everyday life, not just during
disasters, tend to create greater risk, reduce life chances, and deepen material and non-
material losses (Bradshaw & Fordham, 2013). In addition, there is also great concern
expressed in the literature about the vulnerability of other high-risk populations: children, the
elderly, and people with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Such groups can be disadvantaged
and discriminated against, and can face a range of inequalities that magnify their vulnerability
risk (Peek et al., 2010). On the one hand, these disadvantaged groups are usually more
exposed and vulnerable to hazards. However, they can also contribute to building disaster
resilience (Oliver-Smith et al., 2012; Oxfam, 2013; Turnbull et al., 2013).
Political Economy
A number of aspects of a country's political economy can affect disaster resilience. One
of these is regulations relating to urban building codes and land use, poor regulations, or poor
enforcement of regulations, can create economic and social conditions that put vulnerable
groups at greater risk and that are difficult to remedy (GFDRR, 2010; Turnbull et al., 2013;
Wilkinson, 2012a). Another important issue, documented in several case studies, is how
corruption and patronage systems limit adaptive capacity and weaken disaster resilience. One
study in Bangladesh found that pre- and post-disaster interventions were co-opted and used to
increase the assets of political elites to the detriment of low-income groups (Mahmud &
Prowse, 2012). In many developing countries, public policy and political commitment to
disaster resilience is suboptimal. In a meta-review of evidence, Wilkinson (2012a) attributes
this to a lack of political interest and will, unfavorable economic and political incentives,
information gaps, and coordination problems.
Integration of Disaster Resilience in Aid Operation and Policy
In many cases, disaster resilience efforts are hampered by political economy, power and
inequality, including gender inequality (OCHA, 2012; Oxfam, 2013; UNISDR, 2011).
Therefore, Oxfam (2013) recommends a lens that focuses on politics and equality to aid
resilience, which focuses on several aspects including the following:
Social insurance and other programs that target disadvantaged groups who need greater
support and services to have equal opportunities;
Build pro-poor institutions at all levels, which represent and respond to the needs and
capacities of the most vulnerable;
Ensure rights and accountability, and the ability of women and men to assert their rights
and hold power holders accountable through participation in decision-making at all levels;
and
Provide free essential basic services for health and education, and social protection
Disaster Resilience Analysis and Measurement
Several organizations have developed guidelines for measuring disaster resilience. One
widely used guideline is the resilience risk framework, which uses the five dimensions of
resilience identified in the Hyogo Framework for Action (Twigg, 2009). These five
dimensions include governance, risk assessment, knowledge and education, risk management
and vulnerability reduction, and disaster preparedness and response. Other organizations'
frameworks measure different dimensions of resilience. Oxfam, for example, recently
developed a multi-dimensional framework that incorporates livelihoods, innovation capacity,
access to emergency resources, integrity of the natural environment, and social and
institutional capacity (Hughes et al., 2013).
Environmental Support and Government Action
In this context there are three things that need attention, namely: multi-level and multi-
stakeholder working in an enabling environment, supportive actions from the national
government, and supportive actions from local governments.
Multi-level and multi-stakeholder working in an enabling environment
Group interventions and participation in disaster risk reduction at different scales and levels
of action are critical. The policy and institutional environment that supports long-term
disaster resilience should also involve governments supporting the capacity of individuals,
civil society, the private sector and at-risk populations to manage and adapt to risk. Based on
desk and field research in disaster-prone areas in three countries, Reaching Resilience (n.d.)
found that a multi-stakeholder, multi-level approach is effective when integrating disaster risk
reduction, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction in its intervention efforts, as
follows:
Understand and create dialog about people at risk mapping;
Explore appropriate institutional and governance contexts;
Analyzing strengths and relationships between stakeholders;
Supportive actions from local government
Turnbull et al. (2013) provide detailed guidance on risk governance at the local level. To
strengthen risk prevention, efforts are needed to improve local stakeholders' access to public
information, hazard mapping, use of forecasting and early warning systems. Strategies for
dealing with high-impact disasters include the development of disaster management
committees, emergency services, emergency plans and emergency funds, as well as social
insurance mechanisms. Strategies to protect assets and services include developing disaster-
resistant building techniques for houses, schools and hospitals, and investing in water and
sanitation technologies for disaster risk reduction.
Financial Condition
Efforts to improve disaster resilience are typically characterized by shortcomings in
terms of funding, cost and effectiveness of interventions for resilience that are still limited,
yet the need is growing (DFID, 2011; GFDRR, 2010). Multi-year funding for disaster
resilience is often recommended, especially for protracted crises (Frankenberger et al., 2012).
Despite these challenges, several studies have shown that building disaster resilience is more
cost-effective than a late response (Cabot Venton et al., 2013; GFDRR, 2010). The cost-
effectiveness of prevention can essentially be improved through efforts, not least on open
access to information about hazards or risk exposure, provision of disaster infrastructure and
services, other disaster investments, and stakeholder engagement in disaster risk
management.
Conclusion
Ensuring a city has disaster-resilient urban governance is not an easy task. There are
many factors that need to be considered and are interrelated with each other. Disaster resilient
city governance is strongly influenced by infrastructure resilience, institutional resilience,
economic resilience and social resilience. These four things must be managed properly and
continuously in order to create a disaster resilient city. From the ten key success factors of
disaster resilient governance that have been presented in the discussion session, it can be
concluded that awareness of the importance of disaster mitigation is the initial guide to the
success of disaster resilient city governance. Besides the urgency of the existence of
leadership, communication, coordination, participation and information disclosure are also
considered as the backbone for the sustainability of disaster resilient governance.
Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure resilience refers to reducing the vulnerability of structures such as
buildings and transportation systems. Infrastructure resilience also refers to protective
capacities such as maintenance facilities health, vulnerability of buildings to hazards, critical
infrastructure, availability of roads for evacuation, post-disaster supply lines and community
capacity for response and recovery. One country that is trying to strengthen infrastructure
resilience in disaster management is the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands is one of the
areas that is often visited by Atlantic hurricanes. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan, the worst storm in
86 years, hit the largest island, Grand Cayman and damaged 90% of the buildings (Young,
2004). Electricity, water and communications were disrupted for months in some areas of the
Cayman Islands. The island then began the process of rebuilding on a large scale, and within
a national strategic framework for disaster risk reduction. Among other efforts, a 124-bed
hospital was built to Category 5 hurricane standards. This health facility remained functional
during and after Hurricane Ivan, alongside efforts to provide shelter for more than 1,000
people (CY Gov, 2005).
Institutional Resilience
Institutional resilience refers to the systems, governmental and non-governmental that
manage a community. Institutions, whether built to address disaster risk or not, can influence
the vulnerability of different community groups through several pathways and conditions
(Lebel et al., 2006). In the conceptualization of disaster risk, the influence of institutionalized
capacities and practices on disaster risk management is also influenced by ecological and
social resilience and the attributes of the disaster event itself.
In disaster risk management, the institutional and political development context is geared
towards answering five questions: when do disasters occur; who and what is at risk; who is
responsible; how does disaster risk change; and how to evaluate (IFA, 2006). Examples of
institutional resilience efforts have been made by Thailand and El Savador. Thailand through
the Baan Mankong program attempted to improve the condition of informal settlements by
launching an initiative to upgrade and improve the condition of slums and squatter
settlements. Thailand's slum upgrading and improvement program adopts a community-based
approach to solving the problems of unsafe housing and poor living conditions, and puts
residents at the heart of the process (Archer, 2012). The Baan Mankong program channels
funds in the form of infrastructure subsidies and housing loans directly to low-income
communities in informal settlements. The funding comes almost entirely from domestic
resources - a combination of national government, local government and community
contributions. Under this national program, people in illegal settlements can obtain legal land
tenure through various means such as direct purchase from the landowner or moving to
another location provided by the government.
Another example of efforts to improve institutional resilience is that of Santa Tecla.
Santa Tecla is part of the metropolitan area of El Salvador's capital, San Salvador. Santa
Tecla experienced two earthquakes in 2001. In just five seconds, landslides caused more than
700 deaths, displaced 20% of the city's land, and severely damaged 38% of the infrastructure.
The government of Santa Tecla thought deeply about what could be done to transform the
city and make it disaster-proof. The Santa Tecla government then realized the need to start
designing urban land management in a more responsible and sustainable manner. In this
regard, the government recognized the need for citizens to understand the importance of what
the government was doing or the small changes that would occur by encouraging
participation in the 'Mesas de Ciudadanos' (citizens' groups) program, which brings together
different stakeholder organizations in periodic discussions and decision-making.
Economic Resilience
Economic resilience refers to the economic diversity of communities such as the type of
employment, number of businesses, and their ability to function normally after a disaster.
Economic resilience in the concept of disaster resilience contains four definitions, namely:
(a) Robustness, the ability to avoid direct and indirect economic losses; (b) Redundancy, the
level of untapped or excess economic capacity; (c) Resourcefulness - stabilization measures;
and (d) Rapidity - the speed of return to pre-disaster conditions (Bruneau et al., 2003).
Australia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and China have all made efforts to improve
economic resilience after disasters. The city of Cairns, Australia sets up a regular budget
intended for disaster preparedness and response. The city has an annual operating budget that
includes funding for disaster management units, coordination centers, volunteer services and
community awareness programs. In recent years, its annual budget includes allocations for
the construction of buildings, emergency response vehicles and equipment, disaster risk
assessment software, flood warning network upgrades and drainage and flood mitigation
investments. These are the city's commitment to disaster risk reduction. These efforts are
complemented by investments and partnerships at the national level and also involve
professionals in the built environment, the private sector and academic institutions. Similar to
Australia, three other countries - the Philippines, China and Sri Lanka - also have policies to
support investment in disaster risk reduction. Since 2001, cities in the Philippines have been
required to allocate 5% of their local government budgets to disaster funds. Under the
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010; cities in the Philippines can spend
70% of this allocation on preparedness and relief/reserve equipment. Sri Lanka, through the
Ministry of Disaster Management announced that in 2011 the government allocated Rs. 8
billion for flood control programs in the capital, Colombo, while launching a safe urban
planning program to minimize disasters as part of the Resilient Cities Campaign. The funds
were used to clean canals, reconstruct drainage systems, and for other measures to prevent
flooding in Colombo. In China, provincial governors of two disaster-prone Chinese provinces
(Sichuan and Yunnan) committed additional resources to disaster reduction. The Sichuan
Provincial Government invested 2 billion Yuan to improve the local geological disaster
prevention system. The Yunnan Provincial Government, meanwhile, committed to invest at
least 10 billion yuan over ten years in local disaster prevention and assessment systems.
Social Resilience
Social resilience refers to the demographic profile of a community by gender, age,
ethnicity, socioeconomic status and other groupings as well as its social capital profile.
Although difficult to measure, social capital refers to the sense (values, norms and culture) of
community, the ability of groups of citizens to adapt and the sense of attachment to a place.
Strengthening social resilience in disaster management has been applied by Japan, Nepal and
China.
Japan has a "watch and learn" pattern where children and communities learn what they
call Mountain and City Risk as early as possible. Starting at the kindergarten level, Japanese
schools implement education on how to detect and react in disaster situations, conduct regular
disaster response drills and use "disaster watch". This time-consuming investment saved
many lives in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. One of the cities that implemented
this program is Saijo City. Saijo City is one of the cities with an old population in Japan. This
old population is a major problem in disaster response in Saijo City. To be more disaster
resilient, Saijo City needs the energy of young people who are not many. Therefore, Saijo
City implemented a disaster risk awareness program targeting school children. For 12 years,
the Saijo City government has focused on projects to improve the quality of the city's
physical environment, and "mountain and city observation" projects for children. Young
residents meet with the elderly to learn together about the risks faced by Saijo City and to
draw lessons from the 2004 typhoon disaster. Saijo City has developed a 'mountain and city
watching' handbook and established a teachers' association for disaster education and a
children's club for disaster prevention. On top of all this, a national disaster safety day was
implemented. Japan celebrates Disaster Prevention Day every year on September 1, the
anniversary of the great Kanto earthquake of 1923, and March 11, the anniversary of the
Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami.
Apart from Japan, Nepal and China are countries that also observe disaster days. In
Nepal, January 15 marks the anniversary of the great Nepal earthquake of 1934. In
Kathmandu, political leaders and prominent figures commemorated the event with activities
such as street parades, shaking table demonstrations, exhibitions on disaster-resistant
construction, street plays, interactive seminars, poster, art and other competitions, and
presentations for children. An earthquake simulation exercise was the highlight of the
commemorative event, with wide public participation and coverage by local media. China has
designated May 12 as National Disaster Safety Day, to commemorate the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake.
Disaster risk reduction and disaster resilience are integral parts of environmental,
economic, social and political sustainable development (ICLEI, 2010). To improve
governance towards resilience, there are five things that need to be considered, which include
(a) Understanding for whom the government regulates or manages;
(b) Use of a territorial approach in governance;
(c) Use of appropriate tools or methods for efficient land management; (d) Use of ICT and e-
governance; and (5) Implementation of innovative governance.
Keys to Successful Disaster Resilient City Governance
Cities that have been able to strengthen their resilience to disasters have provided some
of the following learning about how to manage cities to become disaster resilient. There are at
least ten key factors that determine whether a city becomes disaster resilient, as follows:
Having a Disaster Resilience Organization
Organizations that support the resilience of cities to disasters are needed to contribute to
the goal of sustainable urban development, a holistic approach in understanding potential
threats, and disaster risk governance that should be adopted. In this context, it is important to
involve decision-makers such as local governments, various officials and departments,
academia, business groups, and communities. Participation of these key groups and actors in
planning, implementation and monitoring, and effective organizational structures are
prerequisites for sound decision-making and practice of disaster risk reduction actions. This
will foster collaboration and partnership among all stakeholders for disaster risk prevention,
mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation. Recognizing that the
appropriate organizational structure will vary within and between countries, there are at least
three things that need to be considered, namely as follows:
Build and strengthen institutional capacity and coordination at the local level;
Building alliances and/or networks with all relevant stakeholder groups; and
Establish legislative frameworks and action mechanisms to achieve resilience.
Identify, Understand, and Utilize Current and Future Risk Scenarios
It is based on the premise that disaster risk management needs to be based on an
understanding of disaster risk scenarios across all dimensions of hazard characteristics, risk
exposure, capacity and vulnerability. Analysis and measurement of risk scenarios are
essential for informed decision-making, prioritizing programs or projects, and planning for
disaster risk reduction measures (prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response). The
need for both can be eliminated if local governments have a clear understanding of the risks
they face and fully discuss with the public and other stakeholders about risk scenarios and the
implementation of meaningful disaster risk reduction measures. There are two things that can
be done at this point, which are as follows:
Identify the most likely and most severe scenarios (worst case); and
Utilize information and measurement results from risk scenarios to make development
decisions by involving stakeholders.
Strengthening Financial Capacity for Disaster Resilience
Strengthening financial capacity can be done by including specific resources and specific
mechanisms that can be used to increase resilience. Financial resources can come from
municipal revenues, local or sectoral national distributions and allocations, public-private
partnerships and technical cooperation, as well as civil society and external organizations.
Financial mechanisms can include resilience financing and resilience self-help embedded in
broader development planning and spending. There are at least three ways in which efforts
can be made to increase awareness and financial capacity to build disaster resilient cities, as
follows:
Recognize the opportunity that building resilience to disasters equates to contributing to a
sound economic strategy;
Ensure a budget for resilience; and
Disseminate risk information for development decisions.
Development of Disaster Resilient City Design
Not all hazards or potential disasters can cause a disaster. A disaster occurs when a
potential disaster results in devastation that a community is unable to cope with on its own
without assistance from others. Therefore, preventive measures can help build better
resilience capacity, avoid and/or minimize disruption and destruction of networks and
infrastructure, which can lead to severe social and economic consequences. In addition,
integrating resilience concepts into infrastructure and socio-economic planning and
development will protect the city's development investments. In the context of developing
disaster-resilient urban design, there are several things that need to be considered and done,
namely as follows:
Place urban planning and land use management at the core of urban resilience through
land zoning and disaster-aware planning;
Mapping systemic and specific vulnerabilities; and
Mainstream resilience into ongoing updates of city master plans and sectoral strategies.
Protecting Natural Buffers to Improve Ecosystem Functions
Ecosystems provide essential services for disaster risk reduction as protection and
barriers against disaster threats and hazards. Ecosystems are central to disaster mitigation by
offering, for example, regulation against flooding and protecting steep slopes from potential
landslides. Ecosystems also increase the resilience of communities to withstand, cope with
and recover from disasters by providing multiple benefits such as food, firewood, clean water
and the like. Degraded ecosystems will not be able to provide such mitigation benefits and
resources, which in turn significantly increases community vulnerability. The process of
urban expansion changes the ecosystem fabric and often generates new risks and new
vulnerabilities. Recognizing the economic value and multiple benefits of healthy ecosystems
that act as natural buffers is important to reduce risks and contribute to the resilience and
sustainability of cities. Relevant ecosystem services may include, but are not limited to: water
retention or water infiltration; afforestation; urban vegetation; floodplains; mangroves, and
other coastal vegetation. Some things that need to be considered in efforts to increase
resilience through ecosystems are as follows:
Raising awareness of the impact of change environmental and ecosystem degradation on
disaster risk by recognizing the value and benefits of ecosystem services for disaster risk
prevention, protecting and or enhancing them as part of disaster risk reduction strategies
for the city;
Promote management of critical ecosystems to strengthen resilience to disasters;
Strengthen existing ecosystem management based on risk scenario assessments; and
Anticipate changes from climate trends, urbanization and make plans that allow
ecosystem services to remain.
Strengthening Institutional Capacity
Understanding the city's institutional background on past efforts towards risk reduction
or management and resilience building can help detect current gaps in local capacity to
coordinate and take action towards disaster prevention, mitigation, response and recovery.
Another advantage is to be able to identify the best and most appropriate approach effective to
strengthen relevant institutions in managing disaster risk. The institutions in question are the
central government and local governments. Other groups also have a role in disaster risk
management by complementing and supporting government measures. These groups include
the private sector that provides public services according to local needs, such as telephone,
water, energy, and health, as well as volunteer capacity or equipment in the event of a
disaster; owners and operators of industrial facilities; building owners (individuals or
companies); NGOs; professionals and academics, employers and labor organizations; and
cultural institutions and civil society organizations. Some things to note, are as follows:
Identifying the specific nature of each disaster risk and mapping the characteristics and
support needs of each institution. This requires reaching a common understanding of the
roles and responsibilities of each;
Building local capacity and strengthening participation in disaster management and
resilience building; and
Ensure consistency of disaster risk data and information among stakeholders. This can be
done by creating and implementing an information and data framework for resilience and
disaster risk reduction efforts.
Identifying, Understanding and Strengthening Social Capacity
Communities should take part in collective efforts to create disaster-resilient cities
through education, training and disaster awareness programs. All components of the
community must understand the hazards and risks they face, so that they can prepare and take
steps to cope with potential disasters. Education and capacity building programs are also key
to mobilizing citizen and community participation in disaster management strategies, such as
improving community preparedness and response to local early warnings. Some things that
need to be considered in improving community capacity to ensure disaster resilience are as
follows:
Establish a comprehensive response unit at the local level;
Develop risk reduction and resilience information;
Integrate disaster risk reduction and resilience into formal education and other training
programs;
Improving public education and awareness through information dissemination through the
business sector and media; and
Establish and maintain open access to data for disaster preparedness and response.
Improving Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure is an important part of urban governance and especially in relation to
emergency response conditions. Therefore, the government needs to pay special attention to
safety needs in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure so that it can continue to be
operational during emergencies. The main infrastructure required for city operations such as
transportation (roads, railways, airports and other ports), vehicle fuel supply lines,
telecommunications systems, utility systems, hospitals and health facilities, educational
institutions and school facilities, food supply chains, police and fire services, and so on. Some
things to note are as follows:
Measurement of critical infrastructure capacity and adequacy;
Strengthening vulnerable infrastructure (infrastructure replacement and procurement);
Build alliances with the private sector to leverage technical and financial resources and
ensure that private investments follow environmental and risk reduction norms; and
Recognize the need for service relevance and operational priorities during and after a
disaster.
Ensuring the Effectiveness of Disaster Response
Well-developed preparedness and response plans can not only save lives and property,
but also contribute to resilience and post-disaster recovery by reducing disaster impacts.
Preparedness efforts, early warning systems and communication systems will help ensure that
cities, communities and individuals threatened by hazards can act in sufficient time and
appropriately to reduce injuries, loss of life and damage to property or the environment.
Sustainability can be achieved if the community itself and local authorities understand the
importance and need for emergency preparedness and response at the local level. Some things
to consider are as follows:
Create and improve preparedness plans, including training;
Strengthening early warning systems; and
Improve the city's emergency response services.
Accelerate City Recovery and Build Back Better
Cities are built by multiple entities over decades or centuries, and are therefore very
difficult to rebuild in a short period of time. Until recently, there was a priority debate
between the need to rebuild quickly and rebuild safely and sustainably. A planned and
participatory recovery and reconstruction process will help the city to be able to reactivate
city life as soon as possible, restoring and rebuilding damaged infrastructure and restoring the
city's economy, empowering its citizens to rebuild their lives, homes and livelihoods.
Reconstruction should start as soon as possible, even before a potential disaster becomes a
disaster. Essentially, cities can foresee needs, establish operational mechanisms and assign
resources required as preparation and mitigation efforts, if supported by capable systems.
Recovery and rehabilitation can be planned long before a disaster occurs. Leadership,
coordination and funding are important parts of the effort. Some things to consider are as
follows:
Recovery must be addressed in multiple aspects and dimensions;
Include affected populations in efforts to define needs and recovery plans;
Recovery is an opportunity to build back better and enhance development;
Seeking resources, strengthening alliances and ensuring sustainability; and
Integrate disaster risk reduction in all investment decisions for recovery and
reconstruction.
Challenges in managing Disaster Resilient Cities
GSDRC (2014) outlines some of the challenges of managing disaster resilient cities in
terms of adaptive capacity, poverty and inequality, political economy, integration of disaster
resilience in aid operations and policies, disaster resilience analysis and measurement,
environmental support and government action, and financial conditions.
Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity relates to the capacity of systems, institutions, people and other
organisms to be able to adjust to potential damage, take benefit from opportunities or respond
to possible consequences (IPCC, 2014). Adaptive capacity includes prevention strategies,
which involve making choices to avoid events, and impact minimization strategies. Existing
research has highlighted that adaptive capacities are interrelated, and no single factor can
explain the level of disaster resilience in any context. For example, the role of indigenous
knowledge must be understood as closely linked to socio-economic variables that support or
undermine adaptation efforts.
Poverty and Inequality Conditions
The capacity of individuals, families or communities to prepare for, withstand and
respond to hazards or crises is enabled and constrained by social status, income and ethnicity
(Bosher et al., 2007). There is a common understanding that it is the poor who will suffer the
greatest losses from disasters (Oxfam, 2013; Shepherd et al., 2013). In 2008, the United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) noted that 94% of all people killed by
disasters between 1975-2000 were from low- or lower-middle-income groups (UNISDR,
2008). Disasters deprive people of assets and livelihoods, reproducing poverty and inequality
(UNISDR, 2008; Shepherd et al., 2013). Therefore, good disaster risk management can
reduce the impact of disasters, especially on the lower middle class (Shepherd et al., 2013).
Research in eight villages in coastal Andhra Pradesh in southern India concluded that
caste is a key factor determining access to resources essential to aid recovery from disasters
(Bosher et al., 2007). In this case, 'lower' castes lacked access to the assets, public facilities
and political networks necessary to aid their recovery. Gender is a tangible form of inequality
that shapes vulnerability to disasters (Ganapati, 2012, 2013; OCHA, 2012; Oxfam UK, 2012;
Turnbull et al., 2013). For women and girls, injustices in everyday life, not just during
disasters, tend to create greater risk, reduce life chances, and deepen material and non-
material losses (Bradshaw & Fordham, 2013). In addition, there is also great concern
expressed in the literature about the vulnerability of other high-risk populations: children, the
elderly, and people with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Such groups can be disadvantaged
and discriminated against, and can face a range of inequalities that magnify their vulnerability
risk (Peek et al., 2010). On the one hand, these disadvantaged groups are usually more
exposed and vulnerable to hazards. However, they can also contribute to building disaster
resilience (Oliver-Smith et al., 2012; Oxfam, 2013; Turnbull et al., 2013).
Political Economy
A number of aspects of a country's political economy can affect disaster resilience. One
of these is regulations relating to urban building codes and land use, poor regulations, or poor
enforcement of regulations, can create economic and social conditions that put vulnerable
groups at greater risk and that are difficult to remedy (GFDRR, 2010; Turnbull et al., 2013;
Wilkinson, 2012a). Another important issue, documented in several case studies, is how
corruption and patronage systems limit adaptive capacity and weaken disaster resilience. One
study in Bangladesh found that pre- and post-disaster interventions were co-opted and used to
increase the assets of political elites to the detriment of low-income groups (Mahmud &
Prowse, 2012). In many developing countries, public policy and political commitment to
disaster resilience is suboptimal. In a meta-review of evidence, Wilkinson (2012a) attributes
this to a lack of political interest and will, unfavorable economic and political incentives,
information gaps, and coordination problems.
Integration of Disaster Resilience in Aid Operation and Policy
In many cases, disaster resilience efforts are hampered by political economy, power and
inequality, including gender inequality (OCHA, 2012; Oxfam, 2013; UNISDR, 2011).
Therefore, Oxfam (2013) recommends a lens that focuses on politics and equality to aid
resilience, which focuses on several aspects including the following:
Social insurance and other programs that target disadvantaged groups who need greater
support and services to have equal opportunities;
Build pro-poor institutions at all levels, which represent and respond to the needs and
capacities of the most vulnerable;
Ensure rights and accountability, and the ability of women and men to assert their rights
and hold power holders accountable through participation in decision-making at all levels;
and
Provide free essential basic services for health and education, and social protection
Disaster Resilience Analysis and Measurement
Several organizations have developed guidelines for measuring disaster resilience. One
widely used guideline is the resilience risk framework, which uses the five dimensions of
resilience identified in the Hyogo Framework for Action (Twigg, 2009). These five
dimensions include governance, risk assessment, knowledge and education, risk management
and vulnerability reduction, and disaster preparedness and response. Other organizations'
frameworks measure different dimensions of resilience. Oxfam, for example, recently
developed a multi-dimensional framework that incorporates livelihoods, innovation capacity,
access to emergency resources, integrity of the natural environment, and social and
institutional capacity (Hughes et al., 2013).
Environmental Support and Government Action
In this context there are three things that need attention, namely: multi-level and multi-
stakeholder working in an enabling environment, supportive actions from the national
government, and supportive actions from local governments.
Multi-level and multi-stakeholder working in an enabling environment
Group interventions and participation in disaster risk reduction at different scales and levels
of action are critical. The policy and institutional environment that supports long-term
disaster resilience should also involve governments supporting the capacity of individuals,
civil society, the private sector and at-risk populations to manage and adapt to risk. Based on
desk and field research in disaster-prone areas in three countries, Reaching Resilience (n.d.)
found that a multi-stakeholder, multi-level approach is effective when integrating disaster risk
reduction, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction in its intervention efforts, as
follows:
Understand and create dialog about people at risk mapping;
Explore appropriate institutional and governance contexts;
Analyzing strengths and relationships between stakeholders;
Supportive actions from local government
Turnbull et al. (2013) provide detailed guidance on risk governance at the local level. To
strengthen risk prevention, efforts are needed to improve local stakeholders' access to public
information, hazard mapping, use of forecasting and early warning systems. Strategies for
dealing with high-impact disasters include the development of disaster management
committees, emergency services, emergency plans and emergency funds, as well as social
insurance mechanisms. Strategies to protect assets and services include developing disaster-
resistant building techniques for houses, schools and hospitals, and investing in water and
sanitation technologies for disaster risk reduction.
Financial Condition
Efforts to improve disaster resilience are typically characterized by shortcomings in
terms of funding, cost and effectiveness of interventions for resilience that are still limited,
yet the need is growing (DFID, 2011; GFDRR, 2010). Multi-year funding for disaster
resilience is often recommended, especially for protracted crises (Frankenberger et al., 2012).
Despite these challenges, several studies have shown that building disaster resilience is more
cost-effective than a late response (Cabot Venton et al., 2013; GFDRR, 2010). The cost-
effectiveness of prevention can essentially be improved through efforts, not least on open
access to information about hazards or risk exposure, provision of disaster infrastructure and
services, other disaster investments, and stakeholder engagement in disaster risk
management.
Conclusion
Ensuring a city has disaster-resilient urban governance is not an easy task. There are
many factors that need to be considered and are interrelated with each other. Disaster resilient
city governance is strongly influenced by infrastructure resilience, institutional resilience,
economic resilience and social resilience. These four things must be managed properly and
continuously in order to create a disaster resilient city. From the ten key success factors of
disaster resilient governance that have been presented in the discussion session, it can be
concluded that awareness of the importance of disaster mitigation is the initial guide to the
success of disaster resilient city governance. Besides the urgency of the existence of
leadership, communication, coordination, participation and information disclosure are also
considered as the backbone for the sustainability of disaster resilient governance.
Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure resilience refers to reducing the vulnerability of structures such as
buildings and transportation systems. Infrastructure resilience also refers to protective
capacities such as maintenance facilities health, vulnerability of buildings to hazards, critical
infrastructure, availability of roads for evacuation, post-disaster supply lines and community
capacity for response and recovery. One country that is trying to strengthen infrastructure
resilience in disaster management is the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands is one of the
areas that is often visited by Atlantic hurricanes. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan, the worst storm in
86 years, hit the largest island, Grand Cayman and damaged 90% of the buildings (Young,
2004). Electricity, water and communications were disrupted for months in some areas of the
Cayman Islands. The island then began the process of rebuilding on a large scale, and within
a national strategic framework for disaster risk reduction. Among other efforts, a 124-bed
hospital was built to Category 5 hurricane standards. This health facility remained functional
during and after Hurricane Ivan, alongside efforts to provide shelter for more than 1,000
people (CY Gov, 2005).
Institutional Resilience
Institutional resilience refers to the systems, governmental and non-governmental that
manage a community. Institutions, whether built to address disaster risk or not, can influence
the vulnerability of different community groups through several pathways and conditions
(Lebel et al., 2006). In the conceptualization of disaster risk, the influence of institutionalized
capacities and practices on disaster risk management is also influenced by ecological and
social resilience and the attributes of the disaster event itself.
In disaster risk management, the institutional and political development context is geared
towards answering five questions: when do disasters occur; who and what is at risk; who is
responsible; how does disaster risk change; and how to evaluate (IFA, 2006). Examples of
institutional resilience efforts have been made by Thailand and El Savador. Thailand through
the Baan Mankong program attempted to improve the condition of informal settlements by
launching an initiative to upgrade and improve the condition of slums and squatter
settlements. Thailand's slum upgrading and improvement program adopts a community-based
approach to solving the problems of unsafe housing and poor living conditions, and puts
residents at the heart of the process (Archer, 2012). The Baan Mankong program channels
funds in the form of infrastructure subsidies and housing loans directly to low-income
communities in informal settlements. The funding comes almost entirely from domestic
resources - a combination of national government, local government and community
contributions. Under this national program, people in illegal settlements can obtain legal land
tenure through various means such as direct purchase from the landowner or moving to
another location provided by the government.
Another example of efforts to improve institutional resilience is that of Santa Tecla.
Santa Tecla is part of the metropolitan area of El Salvador's capital, San Salvador. Santa
Tecla experienced two earthquakes in 2001. In just five seconds, landslides caused more than
700 deaths, displaced 20% of the city's land, and severely damaged 38% of the infrastructure.
The government of Santa Tecla thought deeply about what could be done to transform the
city and make it disaster-proof. The Santa Tecla government then realized the need to start
designing urban land management in a more responsible and sustainable manner. In this
regard, the government recognized the need for citizens to understand the importance of what
the government was doing or the small changes that would occur by encouraging
participation in the 'Mesas de Ciudadanos' (citizens' groups) program, which brings together
different stakeholder organizations in periodic discussions and decision-making.
Economic Resilience
Economic resilience refers to the economic diversity of communities such as the type of
employment, number of businesses, and their ability to function normally after a disaster.
Economic resilience in the concept of disaster resilience contains four definitions, namely:
(a) Robustness, the ability to avoid direct and indirect economic losses; (b) Redundancy, the
level of untapped or excess economic capacity; (c) Resourcefulness - stabilization measures;
and (d) Rapidity - the speed of return to pre-disaster conditions (Bruneau et al., 2003).
Australia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and China have all made efforts to improve
economic resilience after disasters. The city of Cairns, Australia sets up a regular budget
intended for disaster preparedness and response. The city has an annual operating budget that
includes funding for disaster management units, coordination centers, volunteer services and
community awareness programs. In recent years, its annual budget includes allocations for
the construction of buildings, emergency response vehicles and equipment, disaster risk
assessment software, flood warning network upgrades and drainage and flood mitigation
investments. These are the city's commitment to disaster risk reduction. These efforts are
complemented by investments and partnerships at the national level and also involve
professionals in the built environment, the private sector and academic institutions. Similar to
Australia, three other countries - the Philippines, China and Sri Lanka - also have policies to
support investment in disaster risk reduction. Since 2001, cities in the Philippines have been
required to allocate 5% of their local government budgets to disaster funds. Under the
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010; cities in the Philippines can spend
70% of this allocation on preparedness and relief/reserve equipment. Sri Lanka, through the
Ministry of Disaster Management announced that in 2011 the government allocated Rs. 8
billion for flood control programs in the capital, Colombo, while launching a safe urban
planning program to minimize disasters as part of the Resilient Cities Campaign. The funds
were used to clean canals, reconstruct drainage systems, and for other measures to prevent
flooding in Colombo. In China, provincial governors of two disaster-prone Chinese provinces
(Sichuan and Yunnan) committed additional resources to disaster reduction. The Sichuan
Provincial Government invested 2 billion Yuan to improve the local geological disaster
prevention system. The Yunnan Provincial Government, meanwhile, committed to invest at
least 10 billion yuan over ten years in local disaster prevention and assessment systems.
Social Resilience
Social resilience refers to the demographic profile of a community by gender, age,
ethnicity, socioeconomic status and other groupings as well as its social capital profile.
Although difficult to measure, social capital refers to the sense (values, norms and culture) of
community, the ability of groups of citizens to adapt and the sense of attachment to a place.
Strengthening social resilience in disaster management has been applied by Japan, Nepal and
China.
Japan has a "watch and learn" pattern where children and communities learn what they
call Mountain and City Risk as early as possible. Starting at the kindergarten level, Japanese
schools implement education on how to detect and react in disaster situations, conduct regular
disaster response drills and use "disaster watch". This time-consuming investment saved
many lives in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. One of the cities that implemented
this program is Saijo City. Saijo City is one of the cities with an old population in Japan. This
old population is a major problem in disaster response in Saijo City. To be more disaster
resilient, Saijo City needs the energy of young people who are not many. Therefore, Saijo
City implemented a disaster risk awareness program targeting school children. For 12 years,
the Saijo City government has focused on projects to improve the quality of the city's
physical environment, and "mountain and city observation" projects for children. Young
residents meet with the elderly to learn together about the risks faced by Saijo City and to
draw lessons from the 2004 typhoon disaster. Saijo City has developed a 'mountain and city
watching' handbook and established a teachers' association for disaster education and a
children's club for disaster prevention. On top of all this, a national disaster safety day was
implemented. Japan celebrates Disaster Prevention Day every year on September 1, the
anniversary of the great Kanto earthquake of 1923, and March 11, the anniversary of the
Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami.
Apart from Japan, Nepal and China are countries that also observe disaster days. In
Nepal, January 15 marks the anniversary of the great Nepal earthquake of 1934. In
Kathmandu, political leaders and prominent figures commemorated the event with activities
such as street parades, shaking table demonstrations, exhibitions on disaster-resistant
construction, street plays, interactive seminars, poster, art and other competitions, and
presentations for children. An earthquake simulation exercise was the highlight of the
commemorative event, with wide public participation and coverage by local media. China has
designated May 12 as National Disaster Safety Day, to commemorate the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake.
Disaster risk reduction and disaster resilience are integral parts of environmental,
economic, social and political sustainable development (ICLEI, 2010). To improve
governance towards resilience, there are five things that need to be considered, which include
(a) Understanding for whom the government regulates or manages;
(b) Use of a territorial approach in governance;
(c) Use of appropriate tools or methods for efficient land management; (d) Use of ICT and e-
governance; and (5) Implementation of innovative governance.
Keys to Successful Disaster Resilient City Governance
Cities that have been able to strengthen their resilience to disasters have provided some
of the following learning about how to manage cities to become disaster resilient. There are at
least ten key factors that determine whether a city becomes disaster resilient, as follows:
Having a Disaster Resilience Organization
Organizations that support the resilience of cities to disasters are needed to contribute to
the goal of sustainable urban development, a holistic approach in understanding potential
threats, and disaster risk governance that should be adopted. In this context, it is important to
involve decision-makers such as local governments, various officials and departments,
academia, business groups, and communities. Participation of these key groups and actors in
planning, implementation and monitoring, and effective organizational structures are
prerequisites for sound decision-making and practice of disaster risk reduction actions. This
will foster collaboration and partnership among all stakeholders for disaster risk prevention,
mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation. Recognizing that the
appropriate organizational structure will vary within and between countries, there are at least
three things that need to be considered, namely as follows:
Build and strengthen institutional capacity and coordination at the local level;
Building alliances and/or networks with all relevant stakeholder groups; and
Establish legislative frameworks and action mechanisms to achieve resilience.
Identify, Understand, and Utilize Current and Future Risk Scenarios
It is based on the premise that disaster risk management needs to be based on an
understanding of disaster risk scenarios across all dimensions of hazard characteristics, risk
exposure, capacity and vulnerability. Analysis and measurement of risk scenarios are
essential for informed decision-making, prioritizing programs or projects, and planning for
disaster risk reduction measures (prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response). The
need for both can be eliminated if local governments have a clear understanding of the risks
they face and fully discuss with the public and other stakeholders about risk scenarios and the
implementation of meaningful disaster risk reduction measures. There are two things that can
be done at this point, which are as follows:
Identify the most likely and most severe scenarios (worst case); and
Utilize information and measurement results from risk scenarios to make development
decisions by involving stakeholders.
Strengthening Financial Capacity for Disaster Resilience
Strengthening financial capacity can be done by including specific resources and specific
mechanisms that can be used to increase resilience. Financial resources can come from
municipal revenues, local or sectoral national distributions and allocations, public-private
partnerships and technical cooperation, as well as civil society and external organizations.
Financial mechanisms can include resilience financing and resilience self-help embedded in
broader development planning and spending. There are at least three ways in which efforts
can be made to increase awareness and financial capacity to build disaster resilient cities, as
follows:
Recognize the opportunity that building resilience to disasters equates to contributing to a
sound economic strategy;
Ensure a budget for resilience; and
Disseminate risk information for development decisions.
Development of Disaster Resilient City Design
Not all hazards or potential disasters can cause a disaster. A disaster occurs when a
potential disaster results in devastation that a community is unable to cope with on its own
without assistance from others. Therefore, preventive measures can help build better
resilience capacity, avoid and/or minimize disruption and destruction of networks and
infrastructure, which can lead to severe social and economic consequences. In addition,
integrating resilience concepts into infrastructure and socio-economic planning and
development will protect the city's development investments. In the context of developing
disaster-resilient urban design, there are several things that need to be considered and done,
namely as follows:
Place urban planning and land use management at the core of urban resilience through
land zoning and disaster-aware planning;
Mapping systemic and specific vulnerabilities; and
Mainstream resilience into ongoing updates of city master plans and sectoral strategies.
Protecting Natural Buffers to Improve Ecosystem Functions
Ecosystems provide essential services for disaster risk reduction as protection and
barriers against disaster threats and hazards. Ecosystems are central to disaster mitigation by
offering, for example, regulation against flooding and protecting steep slopes from potential
landslides. Ecosystems also increase the resilience of communities to withstand, cope with
and recover from disasters by providing multiple benefits such as food, firewood, clean water
and the like. Degraded ecosystems will not be able to provide such mitigation benefits and
resources, which in turn significantly increases community vulnerability. The process of
urban expansion changes the ecosystem fabric and often generates new risks and new
vulnerabilities. Recognizing the economic value and multiple benefits of healthy ecosystems
that act as natural buffers is important to reduce risks and contribute to the resilience and
sustainability of cities. Relevant ecosystem services may include, but are not limited to: water
retention or water infiltration; afforestation; urban vegetation; floodplains; mangroves, and
other coastal vegetation. Some things that need to be considered in efforts to increase
resilience through ecosystems are as follows:
Raising awareness of the impact of change environmental and ecosystem degradation on
disaster risk by recognizing the value and benefits of ecosystem services for disaster risk
prevention, protecting and or enhancing them as part of disaster risk reduction strategies
for the city;
Promote management of critical ecosystems to strengthen resilience to disasters;
Strengthen existing ecosystem management based on risk scenario assessments; and
Anticipate changes from climate trends, urbanization and make plans that allow
ecosystem services to remain.
Strengthening Institutional Capacity
Understanding the city's institutional background on past efforts towards risk reduction
or management and resilience building can help detect current gaps in local capacity to
coordinate and take action towards disaster prevention, mitigation, response and recovery.
Another advantage is to be able to identify the best and most appropriate approach effective to
strengthen relevant institutions in managing disaster risk. The institutions in question are the
central government and local governments. Other groups also have a role in disaster risk
management by complementing and supporting government measures. These groups include
the private sector that provides public services according to local needs, such as telephone,
water, energy, and health, as well as volunteer capacity or equipment in the event of a
disaster; owners and operators of industrial facilities; building owners (individuals or
companies); NGOs; professionals and academics, employers and labor organizations; and
cultural institutions and civil society organizations. Some things to note, are as follows:
Identifying the specific nature of each disaster risk and mapping the characteristics and
support needs of each institution. This requires reaching a common understanding of the
roles and responsibilities of each;
Building local capacity and strengthening participation in disaster management and
resilience building; and
Ensure consistency of disaster risk data and information among stakeholders. This can be
done by creating and implementing an information and data framework for resilience and
disaster risk reduction efforts.
Identifying, Understanding and Strengthening Social Capacity
Communities should take part in collective efforts to create disaster-resilient cities
through education, training and disaster awareness programs. All components of the
community must understand the hazards and risks they face, so that they can prepare and take
steps to cope with potential disasters. Education and capacity building programs are also key
to mobilizing citizen and community participation in disaster management strategies, such as
improving community preparedness and response to local early warnings. Some things that
need to be considered in improving community capacity to ensure disaster resilience are as
follows:
Establish a comprehensive response unit at the local level;
Develop risk reduction and resilience information;
Integrate disaster risk reduction and resilience into formal education and other training
programs;
Improving public education and awareness through information dissemination through the
business sector and media; and
Establish and maintain open access to data for disaster preparedness and response.
Improving Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure is an important part of urban governance and especially in relation to
emergency response conditions. Therefore, the government needs to pay special attention to
safety needs in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure so that it can continue to be
operational during emergencies. The main infrastructure required for city operations such as
transportation (roads, railways, airports and other ports), vehicle fuel supply lines,
telecommunications systems, utility systems, hospitals and health facilities, educational
institutions and school facilities, food supply chains, police and fire services, and so on. Some
things to note are as follows:
Measurement of critical infrastructure capacity and adequacy;
Strengthening vulnerable infrastructure (infrastructure replacement and procurement);
Build alliances with the private sector to leverage technical and financial resources and
ensure that private investments follow environmental and risk reduction norms; and
Recognize the need for service relevance and operational priorities during and after a
disaster.
Ensuring the Effectiveness of Disaster Response
Well-developed preparedness and response plans can not only save lives and property,
but also contribute to resilience and post-disaster recovery by reducing disaster impacts.
Preparedness efforts, early warning systems and communication systems will help ensure that
cities, communities and individuals threatened by hazards can act in sufficient time and
appropriately to reduce injuries, loss of life and damage to property or the environment.
Sustainability can be achieved if the community itself and local authorities understand the
importance and need for emergency preparedness and response at the local level. Some things
to consider are as follows:
Create and improve preparedness plans, including training;
Strengthening early warning systems; and
Improve the city's emergency response services.
Accelerate City Recovery and Build Back Better
Cities are built by multiple entities over decades or centuries, and are therefore very
difficult to rebuild in a short period of time. Until recently, there was a priority debate
between the need to rebuild quickly and rebuild safely and sustainably. A planned and
participatory recovery and reconstruction process will help the city to be able to reactivate
city life as soon as possible, restoring and rebuilding damaged infrastructure and restoring the
city's economy, empowering its citizens to rebuild their lives, homes and livelihoods.
Reconstruction should start as soon as possible, even before a potential disaster becomes a
disaster. Essentially, cities can foresee needs, establish operational mechanisms and assign
resources required as preparation and mitigation efforts, if supported by capable systems.
Recovery and rehabilitation can be planned long before a disaster occurs. Leadership,
coordination and funding are important parts of the effort. Some things to consider are as
follows:
Recovery must be addressed in multiple aspects and dimensions;
Include affected populations in efforts to define needs and recovery plans;
Recovery is an opportunity to build back better and enhance development;
Seeking resources, strengthening alliances and ensuring sustainability; and
Integrate disaster risk reduction in all investment decisions for recovery and
reconstruction.
Challenges in managing Disaster Resilient Cities
GSDRC (2014) outlines some of the challenges of managing disaster resilient cities in
terms of adaptive capacity, poverty and inequality, political economy, integration of disaster
resilience in aid operations and policies, disaster resilience analysis and measurement,
environmental support and government action, and financial conditions.
Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity relates to the capacity of systems, institutions, people and other
organisms to be able to adjust to potential damage, take benefit from opportunities or respond
to possible consequences (IPCC, 2014). Adaptive capacity includes prevention strategies,
which involve making choices to avoid events, and impact minimization strategies. Existing
research has highlighted that adaptive capacities are interrelated, and no single factor can
explain the level of disaster resilience in any context. For example, the role of indigenous
knowledge must be understood as closely linked to socio-economic variables that support or
undermine adaptation efforts.
Poverty and Inequality Conditions
The capacity of individuals, families or communities to prepare for, withstand and
respond to hazards or crises is enabled and constrained by social status, income and ethnicity
(Bosher et al., 2007). There is a common understanding that it is the poor who will suffer the
greatest losses from disasters (Oxfam, 2013; Shepherd et al., 2013). In 2008, the United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) noted that 94% of all people killed by
disasters between 1975-2000 were from low- or lower-middle-income groups (UNISDR,
2008). Disasters deprive people of assets and livelihoods, reproducing poverty and inequality
(UNISDR, 2008; Shepherd et al., 2013). Therefore, good disaster risk management can
reduce the impact of disasters, especially on the lower middle class (Shepherd et al., 2013).
Research in eight villages in coastal Andhra Pradesh in southern India concluded that
caste is a key factor determining access to resources essential to aid recovery from disasters
(Bosher et al., 2007). In this case, 'lower' castes lacked access to the assets, public facilities
and political networks necessary to aid their recovery. Gender is a tangible form of inequality
that shapes vulnerability to disasters (Ganapati, 2012, 2013; OCHA, 2012; Oxfam UK, 2012;
Turnbull et al., 2013). For women and girls, injustices in everyday life, not just during
disasters, tend to create greater risk, reduce life chances, and deepen material and non-
material losses (Bradshaw & Fordham, 2013). In addition, there is also great concern
expressed in the literature about the vulnerability of other high-risk populations: children, the
elderly, and people with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Such groups can be disadvantaged
and discriminated against, and can face a range of inequalities that magnify their vulnerability
risk (Peek et al., 2010). On the one hand, these disadvantaged groups are usually more
exposed and vulnerable to hazards. However, they can also contribute to building disaster
resilience (Oliver-Smith et al., 2012; Oxfam, 2013; Turnbull et al., 2013).
Political Economy
A number of aspects of a country's political economy can affect disaster resilience. One
of these is regulations relating to urban building codes and land use, poor regulations, or poor
enforcement of regulations, can create economic and social conditions that put vulnerable
groups at greater risk and that are difficult to remedy (GFDRR, 2010; Turnbull et al., 2013;
Wilkinson, 2012a). Another important issue, documented in several case studies, is how
corruption and patronage systems limit adaptive capacity and weaken disaster resilience. One
study in Bangladesh found that pre- and post-disaster interventions were co-opted and used to
increase the assets of political elites to the detriment of low-income groups (Mahmud &
Prowse, 2012). In many developing countries, public policy and political commitment to
disaster resilience is suboptimal. In a meta-review of evidence, Wilkinson (2012a) attributes
this to a lack of political interest and will, unfavorable economic and political incentives,
information gaps, and coordination problems.
Integration of Disaster Resilience in Aid Operation and Policy
In many cases, disaster resilience efforts are hampered by political economy, power and
inequality, including gender inequality (OCHA, 2012; Oxfam, 2013; UNISDR, 2011).
Therefore, Oxfam (2013) recommends a lens that focuses on politics and equality to aid
resilience, which focuses on several aspects including the following:
Social insurance and other programs that target disadvantaged groups who need greater
support and services to have equal opportunities;
Build pro-poor institutions at all levels, which represent and respond to the needs and
capacities of the most vulnerable;
Ensure rights and accountability, and the ability of women and men to assert their rights
and hold power holders accountable through participation in decision-making at all levels;
and
Provide free essential basic services for health and education, and social protection
Disaster Resilience Analysis and Measurement
Several organizations have developed guidelines for measuring disaster resilience. One
widely used guideline is the resilience risk framework, which uses the five dimensions of
resilience identified in the Hyogo Framework for Action (Twigg, 2009). These five
dimensions include governance, risk assessment, knowledge and education, risk management
and vulnerability reduction, and disaster preparedness and response. Other organizations'
frameworks measure different dimensions of resilience. Oxfam, for example, recently
developed a multi-dimensional framework that incorporates livelihoods, innovation capacity,
access to emergency resources, integrity of the natural environment, and social and
institutional capacity (Hughes et al., 2013).
Environmental Support and Government Action
In this context there are three things that need attention, namely: multi-level and multi-
stakeholder working in an enabling environment, supportive actions from the national
government, and supportive actions from local governments.
Multi-level and multi-stakeholder working in an enabling environment
Group interventions and participation in disaster risk reduction at different scales and levels
of action are critical. The policy and institutional environment that supports long-term
disaster resilience should also involve governments supporting the capacity of individuals,
civil society, the private sector and at-risk populations to manage and adapt to risk. Based on
desk and field research in disaster-prone areas in three countries, Reaching Resilience (n.d.)
found that a multi-stakeholder, multi-level approach is effective when integrating disaster risk
reduction, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction in its intervention efforts, as
follows:
Understand and create dialog about people at risk mapping;
Explore appropriate institutional and governance contexts;
Analyzing strengths and relationships between stakeholders;
Supportive actions from local government
Turnbull et al. (2013) provide detailed guidance on risk governance at the local level. To
strengthen risk prevention, efforts are needed to improve local stakeholders' access to public
information, hazard mapping, use of forecasting and early warning systems. Strategies for
dealing with high-impact disasters include the development of disaster management
committees, emergency services, emergency plans and emergency funds, as well as social
insurance mechanisms. Strategies to protect assets and services include developing disaster-
resistant building techniques for houses, schools and hospitals, and investing in water and
sanitation technologies for disaster risk reduction.
Financial Condition
Efforts to improve disaster resilience are typically characterized by shortcomings in
terms of funding, cost and effectiveness of interventions for resilience that are still limited,
yet the need is growing (DFID, 2011; GFDRR, 2010). Multi-year funding for disaster
resilience is often recommended, especially for protracted crises (Frankenberger et al., 2012).
Despite these challenges, several studies have shown that building disaster resilience is more
cost-effective than a late response (Cabot Venton et al., 2013; GFDRR, 2010). The cost-
effectiveness of prevention can essentially be improved through efforts, not least on open
access to information about hazards or risk exposure, provision of disaster infrastructure and
services, other disaster investments, and stakeholder engagement in disaster risk
management.
Conclusion
Ensuring a city has disaster-resilient urban governance is not an easy task. There are
many factors that need to be considered and are interrelated with each other. Disaster resilient
city governance is strongly influenced by infrastructure resilience, institutional resilience,
economic resilience and social resilience. These four things must be managed properly and
continuously in order to create a disaster resilient city. From the ten key success factors of
disaster resilient governance that have been presented in the discussion session, it can be
concluded that awareness of the importance of disaster mitigation is the initial guide to the
success of disaster resilient city governance. Besides the urgency of the existence of
leadership, communication, coordination, participation and information disclosure are also
considered as the backbone for the sustainability of disaster resilient governance.
Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure resilience refers to reducing the vulnerability of structures such as
buildings and transportation systems. Infrastructure resilience also refers to protective
capacities such as maintenance facilities health, vulnerability of buildings to hazards, critical
infrastructure, availability of roads for evacuation, post-disaster supply lines and community
capacity for response and recovery. One country that is trying to strengthen infrastructure
resilience in disaster management is the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands is one of the
areas that is often visited by Atlantic hurricanes. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan, the worst storm in
86 years, hit the largest island, Grand Cayman and damaged 90% of the buildings (Young,
2004). Electricity, water and communications were disrupted for months in some areas of the
Cayman Islands. The island then began the process of rebuilding on a large scale, and within
a national strategic framework for disaster risk reduction. Among other efforts, a 124-bed
hospital was built to Category 5 hurricane standards. This health facility remained functional
during and after Hurricane Ivan, alongside efforts to provide shelter for more than 1,000
people (CY Gov, 2005).
Institutional Resilience
Institutional resilience refers to the systems, governmental and non-governmental that
manage a community. Institutions, whether built to address disaster risk or not, can influence
the vulnerability of different community groups through several pathways and conditions
(Lebel et al., 2006). In the conceptualization of disaster risk, the influence of institutionalized
capacities and practices on disaster risk management is also influenced by ecological and
social resilience and the attributes of the disaster event itself.
In disaster risk management, the institutional and political development context is geared
towards answering five questions: when do disasters occur; who and what is at risk; who is
responsible; how does disaster risk change; and how to evaluate (IFA, 2006). Examples of
institutional resilience efforts have been made by Thailand and El Savador. Thailand through
the Baan Mankong program attempted to improve the condition of informal settlements by
launching an initiative to upgrade and improve the condition of slums and squatter
settlements. Thailand's slum upgrading and improvement program adopts a community-based
approach to solving the problems of unsafe housing and poor living conditions, and puts
residents at the heart of the process (Archer, 2012). The Baan Mankong program channels
funds in the form of infrastructure subsidies and housing loans directly to low-income
communities in informal settlements. The funding comes almost entirely from domestic
resources - a combination of national government, local government and community
contributions. Under this national program, people in illegal settlements can obtain legal land
tenure through various means such as direct purchase from the landowner or moving to
another location provided by the government.
Another example of efforts to improve institutional resilience is that of Santa Tecla.
Santa Tecla is part of the metropolitan area of El Salvador's capital, San Salvador. Santa
Tecla experienced two earthquakes in 2001. In just five seconds, landslides caused more than
700 deaths, displaced 20% of the city's land, and severely damaged 38% of the infrastructure.
The government of Santa Tecla thought deeply about what could be done to transform the
city and make it disaster-proof. The Santa Tecla government then realized the need to start
designing urban land management in a more responsible and sustainable manner. In this
regard, the government recognized the need for citizens to understand the importance of what
the government was doing or the small changes that would occur by encouraging
participation in the 'Mesas de Ciudadanos' (citizens' groups) program, which brings together
different stakeholder organizations in periodic discussions and decision-making.
Economic Resilience
Economic resilience refers to the economic diversity of communities such as the type of
employment, number of businesses, and their ability to function normally after a disaster.
Economic resilience in the concept of disaster resilience contains four definitions, namely:
(a) Robustness, the ability to avoid direct and indirect economic losses; (b) Redundancy, the
level of untapped or excess economic capacity; (c) Resourcefulness - stabilization measures;
and (d) Rapidity - the speed of return to pre-disaster conditions (Bruneau et al., 2003).
Australia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and China have all made efforts to improve
economic resilience after disasters. The city of Cairns, Australia sets up a regular budget
intended for disaster preparedness and response. The city has an annual operating budget that
includes funding for disaster management units, coordination centers, volunteer services and
community awareness programs. In recent years, its annual budget includes allocations for
the construction of buildings, emergency response vehicles and equipment, disaster risk
assessment software, flood warning network upgrades and drainage and flood mitigation
investments. These are the city's commitment to disaster risk reduction. These efforts are
complemented by investments and partnerships at the national level and also involve
professionals in the built environment, the private sector and academic institutions. Similar to
Australia, three other countries - the Philippines, China and Sri Lanka - also have policies to
support investment in disaster risk reduction. Since 2001, cities in the Philippines have been
required to allocate 5% of their local government budgets to disaster funds. Under the
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010; cities in the Philippines can spend
70% of this allocation on preparedness and relief/reserve equipment. Sri Lanka, through the
Ministry of Disaster Management announced that in 2011 the government allocated Rs. 8
billion for flood control programs in the capital, Colombo, while launching a safe urban
planning program to minimize disasters as part of the Resilient Cities Campaign. The funds
were used to clean canals, reconstruct drainage systems, and for other measures to prevent
flooding in Colombo. In China, provincial governors of two disaster-prone Chinese provinces
(Sichuan and Yunnan) committed additional resources to disaster reduction. The Sichuan
Provincial Government invested 2 billion Yuan to improve the local geological disaster
prevention system. The Yunnan Provincial Government, meanwhile, committed to invest at
least 10 billion yuan over ten years in local disaster prevention and assessment systems.
Social Resilience
Social resilience refers to the demographic profile of a community by gender, age,
ethnicity, socioeconomic status and other groupings as well as its social capital profile.
Although difficult to measure, social capital refers to the sense (values, norms and culture) of
community, the ability of groups of citizens to adapt and the sense of attachment to a place.
Strengthening social resilience in disaster management has been applied by Japan, Nepal and
China.
Japan has a "watch and learn" pattern where children and communities learn what they
call Mountain and City Risk as early as possible. Starting at the kindergarten level, Japanese
schools implement education on how to detect and react in disaster situations, conduct regular
disaster response drills and use "disaster watch". This time-consuming investment saved
many lives in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. One of the cities that implemented
this program is Saijo City. Saijo City is one of the cities with an old population in Japan. This
old population is a major problem in disaster response in Saijo City. To be more disaster
resilient, Saijo City needs the energy of young people who are not many. Therefore, Saijo
City implemented a disaster risk awareness program targeting school children. For 12 years,
the Saijo City government has focused on projects to improve the quality of the city's
physical environment, and "mountain and city observation" projects for children. Young
residents meet with the elderly to learn together about the risks faced by Saijo City and to
draw lessons from the 2004 typhoon disaster. Saijo City has developed a 'mountain and city
watching' handbook and established a teachers' association for disaster education and a
children's club for disaster prevention. On top of all this, a national disaster safety day was
implemented. Japan celebrates Disaster Prevention Day every year on September 1, the
anniversary of the great Kanto earthquake of 1923, and March 11, the anniversary of the
Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami.
Apart from Japan, Nepal and China are countries that also observe disaster days. In
Nepal, January 15 marks the anniversary of the great Nepal earthquake of 1934. In
Kathmandu, political leaders and prominent figures commemorated the event with activities
such as street parades, shaking table demonstrations, exhibitions on disaster-resistant
construction, street plays, interactive seminars, poster, art and other competitions, and
presentations for children. An earthquake simulation exercise was the highlight of the
commemorative event, with wide public participation and coverage by local media. China has
designated May 12 as National Disaster Safety Day, to commemorate the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake.
Disaster risk reduction and disaster resilience are integral parts of environmental,
economic, social and political sustainable development (ICLEI, 2010). To improve
governance towards resilience, there are five things that need to be considered, which include
(a) Understanding for whom the government regulates or manages;
(b) Use of a territorial approach in governance;
(c) Use of appropriate tools or methods for efficient land management; (d) Use of ICT and e-
governance; and (5) Implementation of innovative governance.
Keys to Successful Disaster Resilient City Governance
Cities that have been able to strengthen their resilience to disasters have provided some
of the following learning about how to manage cities to become disaster resilient. There are at
least ten key factors that determine whether a city becomes disaster resilient, as follows:
Having a Disaster Resilience Organization
Organizations that support the resilience of cities to disasters are needed to contribute to
the goal of sustainable urban development, a holistic approach in understanding potential
threats, and disaster risk governance that should be adopted. In this context, it is important to
involve decision-makers such as local governments, various officials and departments,
academia, business groups, and communities. Participation of these key groups and actors in
planning, implementation and monitoring, and effective organizational structures are
prerequisites for sound decision-making and practice of disaster risk reduction actions. This
will foster collaboration and partnership among all stakeholders for disaster risk prevention,
mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation. Recognizing that the
appropriate organizational structure will vary within and between countries, there are at least
three things that need to be considered, namely as follows:
Build and strengthen institutional capacity and coordination at the local level;
Building alliances and/or networks with all relevant stakeholder groups; and
Establish legislative frameworks and action mechanisms to achieve resilience.
Identify, Understand, and Utilize Current and Future Risk Scenarios
It is based on the premise that disaster risk management needs to be based on an
understanding of disaster risk scenarios across all dimensions of hazard characteristics, risk
exposure, capacity and vulnerability. Analysis and measurement of risk scenarios are
essential for informed decision-making, prioritizing programs or projects, and planning for
disaster risk reduction measures (prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response). The
need for both can be eliminated if local governments have a clear understanding of the risks
they face and fully discuss with the public and other stakeholders about risk scenarios and the
implementation of meaningful disaster risk reduction measures. There are two things that can
be done at this point, which are as follows:
Identify the most likely and most severe scenarios (worst case); and
Utilize information and measurement results from risk scenarios to make development
decisions by involving stakeholders.
Strengthening Financial Capacity for Disaster Resilience
Strengthening financial capacity can be done by including specific resources and specific
mechanisms that can be used to increase resilience. Financial resources can come from
municipal revenues, local or sectoral national distributions and allocations, public-private
partnerships and technical cooperation, as well as civil society and external organizations.
Financial mechanisms can include resilience financing and resilience self-help embedded in
broader development planning and spending. There are at least three ways in which efforts
can be made to increase awareness and financial capacity to build disaster resilient cities, as
follows:
Recognize the opportunity that building resilience to disasters equates to contributing to a
sound economic strategy;
Ensure a budget for resilience; and
Disseminate risk information for development decisions.
Development of Disaster Resilient City Design
Not all hazards or potential disasters can cause a disaster. A disaster occurs when a
potential disaster results in devastation that a community is unable to cope with on its own
without assistance from others. Therefore, preventive measures can help build better
resilience capacity, avoid and/or minimize disruption and destruction of networks and
infrastructure, which can lead to severe social and economic consequences. In addition,
integrating resilience concepts into infrastructure and socio-economic planning and
development will protect the city's development investments. In the context of developing
disaster-resilient urban design, there are several things that need to be considered and done,
namely as follows:
Place urban planning and land use management at the core of urban resilience through
land zoning and disaster-aware planning;
Mapping systemic and specific vulnerabilities; and
Mainstream resilience into ongoing updates of city master plans and sectoral strategies.
Protecting Natural Buffers to Improve Ecosystem Functions
Ecosystems provide essential services for disaster risk reduction as protection and
barriers against disaster threats and hazards. Ecosystems are central to disaster mitigation by
offering, for example, regulation against flooding and protecting steep slopes from potential
landslides. Ecosystems also increase the resilience of communities to withstand, cope with
and recover from disasters by providing multiple benefits such as food, firewood, clean water
and the like. Degraded ecosystems will not be able to provide such mitigation benefits and
resources, which in turn significantly increases community vulnerability. The process of
urban expansion changes the ecosystem fabric and often generates new risks and new
vulnerabilities. Recognizing the economic value and multiple benefits of healthy ecosystems
that act as natural buffers is important to reduce risks and contribute to the resilience and
sustainability of cities. Relevant ecosystem services may include, but are not limited to: water
retention or water infiltration; afforestation; urban vegetation; floodplains; mangroves, and
other coastal vegetation. Some things that need to be considered in efforts to increase
resilience through ecosystems are as follows:
Raising awareness of the impact of change environmental and ecosystem degradation on
disaster risk by recognizing the value and benefits of ecosystem services for disaster risk
prevention, protecting and or enhancing them as part of disaster risk reduction strategies
for the city;
Promote management of critical ecosystems to strengthen resilience to disasters;
Strengthen existing ecosystem management based on risk scenario assessments; and
Anticipate changes from climate trends, urbanization and make plans that allow
ecosystem services to remain.
Strengthening Institutional Capacity
Understanding the city's institutional background on past efforts towards risk reduction
or management and resilience building can help detect current gaps in local capacity to
coordinate and take action towards disaster prevention, mitigation, response and recovery.
Another advantage is to be able to identify the best and most appropriate approach effective to
strengthen relevant institutions in managing disaster risk. The institutions in question are the
central government and local governments. Other groups also have a role in disaster risk
management by complementing and supporting government measures. These groups include
the private sector that provides public services according to local needs, such as telephone,
water, energy, and health, as well as volunteer capacity or equipment in the event of a
disaster; owners and operators of industrial facilities; building owners (individuals or
companies); NGOs; professionals and academics, employers and labor organizations; and
cultural institutions and civil society organizations. Some things to note, are as follows:
Identifying the specific nature of each disaster risk and mapping the characteristics and
support needs of each institution. This requires reaching a common understanding of the
roles and responsibilities of each;
Building local capacity and strengthening participation in disaster management and
resilience building; and
Ensure consistency of disaster risk data and information among stakeholders. This can be
done by creating and implementing an information and data framework for resilience and
disaster risk reduction efforts.
Identifying, Understanding and Strengthening Social Capacity
Communities should take part in collective efforts to create disaster-resilient cities
through education, training and disaster awareness programs. All components of the
community must understand the hazards and risks they face, so that they can prepare and take
steps to cope with potential disasters. Education and capacity building programs are also key
to mobilizing citizen and community participation in disaster management strategies, such as
improving community preparedness and response to local early warnings. Some things that
need to be considered in improving community capacity to ensure disaster resilience are as
follows:
Establish a comprehensive response unit at the local level;
Develop risk reduction and resilience information;
Integrate disaster risk reduction and resilience into formal education and other training
programs;
Improving public education and awareness through information dissemination through the
business sector and media; and
Establish and maintain open access to data for disaster preparedness and response.
Improving Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure is an important part of urban governance and especially in relation to
emergency response conditions. Therefore, the government needs to pay special attention to
safety needs in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure so that it can continue to be
operational during emergencies. The main infrastructure required for city operations such as
transportation (roads, railways, airports and other ports), vehicle fuel supply lines,
telecommunications systems, utility systems, hospitals and health facilities, educational
institutions and school facilities, food supply chains, police and fire services, and so on. Some
things to note are as follows:
Measurement of critical infrastructure capacity and adequacy;
Strengthening vulnerable infrastructure (infrastructure replacement and procurement);
Build alliances with the private sector to leverage technical and financial resources and
ensure that private investments follow environmental and risk reduction norms; and
Recognize the need for service relevance and operational priorities during and after a
disaster.
Ensuring the Effectiveness of Disaster Response
Well-developed preparedness and response plans can not only save lives and property,
but also contribute to resilience and post-disaster recovery by reducing disaster impacts.
Preparedness efforts, early warning systems and communication systems will help ensure that
cities, communities and individuals threatened by hazards can act in sufficient time and
appropriately to reduce injuries, loss of life and damage to property or the environment.
Sustainability can be achieved if the community itself and local authorities understand the
importance and need for emergency preparedness and response at the local level. Some things
to consider are as follows:
Create and improve preparedness plans, including training;
Strengthening early warning systems; and
Improve the city's emergency response services.
Accelerate City Recovery and Build Back Better
Cities are built by multiple entities over decades or centuries, and are therefore very
difficult to rebuild in a short period of time. Until recently, there was a priority debate
between the need to rebuild quickly and rebuild safely and sustainably. A planned and
participatory recovery and reconstruction process will help the city to be able to reactivate
city life as soon as possible, restoring and rebuilding damaged infrastructure and restoring the
city's economy, empowering its citizens to rebuild their lives, homes and livelihoods.
Reconstruction should start as soon as possible, even before a potential disaster becomes a
disaster. Essentially, cities can foresee needs, establish operational mechanisms and assign
resources required as preparation and mitigation efforts, if supported by capable systems.
Recovery and rehabilitation can be planned long before a disaster occurs. Leadership,
coordination and funding are important parts of the effort. Some things to consider are as
follows:
Recovery must be addressed in multiple aspects and dimensions;
Include affected populations in efforts to define needs and recovery plans;
Recovery is an opportunity to build back better and enhance development;
Seeking resources, strengthening alliances and ensuring sustainability; and
Integrate disaster risk reduction in all investment decisions for recovery and
reconstruction.
Challenges in managing Disaster Resilient Cities
GSDRC (2014) outlines some of the challenges of managing disaster resilient cities in
terms of adaptive capacity, poverty and inequality, political economy, integration of disaster
resilience in aid operations and policies, disaster resilience analysis and measurement,
environmental support and government action, and financial conditions.
Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity relates to the capacity of systems, institutions, people and other
organisms to be able to adjust to potential damage, take benefit from opportunities or respond
to possible consequences (IPCC, 2014). Adaptive capacity includes prevention strategies,
which involve making choices to avoid events, and impact minimization strategies. Existing
research has highlighted that adaptive capacities are interrelated, and no single factor can
explain the level of disaster resilience in any context. For example, the role of indigenous
knowledge must be understood as closely linked to socio-economic variables that support or
undermine adaptation efforts.
Poverty and Inequality Conditions
The capacity of individuals, families or communities to prepare for, withstand and
respond to hazards or crises is enabled and constrained by social status, income and ethnicity
(Bosher et al., 2007). There is a common understanding that it is the poor who will suffer the
greatest losses from disasters (Oxfam, 2013; Shepherd et al., 2013). In 2008, the United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) noted that 94% of all people killed by
disasters between 1975-2000 were from low- or lower-middle-income groups (UNISDR,
2008). Disasters deprive people of assets and livelihoods, reproducing poverty and inequality
(UNISDR, 2008; Shepherd et al., 2013). Therefore, good disaster risk management can
reduce the impact of disasters, especially on the lower middle class (Shepherd et al., 2013).
Research in eight villages in coastal Andhra Pradesh in southern India concluded that
caste is a key factor determining access to resources essential to aid recovery from disasters
(Bosher et al., 2007). In this case, 'lower' castes lacked access to the assets, public facilities
and political networks necessary to aid their recovery. Gender is a tangible form of inequality
that shapes vulnerability to disasters (Ganapati, 2012, 2013; OCHA, 2012; Oxfam UK, 2012;
Turnbull et al., 2013). For women and girls, injustices in everyday life, not just during
disasters, tend to create greater risk, reduce life chances, and deepen material and non-
material losses (Bradshaw & Fordham, 2013). In addition, there is also great concern
expressed in the literature about the vulnerability of other high-risk populations: children, the
elderly, and people with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Such groups can be disadvantaged
and discriminated against, and can face a range of inequalities that magnify their vulnerability
risk (Peek et al., 2010). On the one hand, these disadvantaged groups are usually more
exposed and vulnerable to hazards. However, they can also contribute to building disaster
resilience (Oliver-Smith et al., 2012; Oxfam, 2013; Turnbull et al., 2013).
Political Economy
A number of aspects of a country's political economy can affect disaster resilience. One
of these is regulations relating to urban building codes and land use, poor regulations, or poor
enforcement of regulations, can create economic and social conditions that put vulnerable
groups at greater risk and that are difficult to remedy (GFDRR, 2010; Turnbull et al., 2013;
Wilkinson, 2012a). Another important issue, documented in several case studies, is how
corruption and patronage systems limit adaptive capacity and weaken disaster resilience. One
study in Bangladesh found that pre- and post-disaster interventions were co-opted and used to
increase the assets of political elites to the detriment of low-income groups (Mahmud &
Prowse, 2012). In many developing countries, public policy and political commitment to
disaster resilience is suboptimal. In a meta-review of evidence, Wilkinson (2012a) attributes
this to a lack of political interest and will, unfavorable economic and political incentives,
information gaps, and coordination problems.
Integration of Disaster Resilience in Aid Operation and Policy
In many cases, disaster resilience efforts are hampered by political economy, power and
inequality, including gender inequality (OCHA, 2012; Oxfam, 2013; UNISDR, 2011).
Therefore, Oxfam (2013) recommends a lens that focuses on politics and equality to aid
resilience, which focuses on several aspects including the following:
Social insurance and other programs that target disadvantaged groups who need greater
support and services to have equal opportunities;
Build pro-poor institutions at all levels, which represent and respond to the needs and
capacities of the most vulnerable;
Ensure rights and accountability, and the ability of women and men to assert their rights
and hold power holders accountable through participation in decision-making at all levels;
and
Provide free essential basic services for health and education, and social protection
Disaster Resilience Analysis and Measurement
Several organizations have developed guidelines for measuring disaster resilience. One
widely used guideline is the resilience risk framework, which uses the five dimensions of
resilience identified in the Hyogo Framework for Action (Twigg, 2009). These five
dimensions include governance, risk assessment, knowledge and education, risk management
and vulnerability reduction, and disaster preparedness and response. Other organizations'
frameworks measure different dimensions of resilience. Oxfam, for example, recently
developed a multi-dimensional framework that incorporates livelihoods, innovation capacity,
access to emergency resources, integrity of the natural environment, and social and
institutional capacity (Hughes et al., 2013).
Environmental Support and Government Action
In this context there are three things that need attention, namely: multi-level and multi-
stakeholder working in an enabling environment, supportive actions from the national
government, and supportive actions from local governments.
Multi-level and multi-stakeholder working in an enabling environment
Group interventions and participation in disaster risk reduction at different scales and levels
of action are critical. The policy and institutional environment that supports long-term
disaster resilience should also involve governments supporting the capacity of individuals,
civil society, the private sector and at-risk populations to manage and adapt to risk. Based on
desk and field research in disaster-prone areas in three countries, Reaching Resilience (n.d.)
found that a multi-stakeholder, multi-level approach is effective when integrating disaster risk
reduction, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction in its intervention efforts, as
follows:
Understand and create dialog about people at risk mapping;
Explore appropriate institutional and governance contexts;
Analyzing strengths and relationships between stakeholders;
Supportive actions from local government
Turnbull et al. (2013) provide detailed guidance on risk governance at the local level. To
strengthen risk prevention, efforts are needed to improve local stakeholders' access to public
information, hazard mapping, use of forecasting and early warning systems. Strategies for
dealing with high-impact disasters include the development of disaster management
committees, emergency services, emergency plans and emergency funds, as well as social
insurance mechanisms. Strategies to protect assets and services include developing disaster-
resistant building techniques for houses, schools and hospitals, and investing in water and
sanitation technologies for disaster risk reduction.
Financial Condition
Efforts to improve disaster resilience are typically characterized by shortcomings in
terms of funding, cost and effectiveness of interventions for resilience that are still limited,
yet the need is growing (DFID, 2011; GFDRR, 2010). Multi-year funding for disaster
resilience is often recommended, especially for protracted crises (Frankenberger et al., 2012).
Despite these challenges, several studies have shown that building disaster resilience is more
cost-effective than a late response (Cabot Venton et al., 2013; GFDRR, 2010). The cost-
effectiveness of prevention can essentially be improved through efforts, not least on open
access to information about hazards or risk exposure, provision of disaster infrastructure and
services, other disaster investments, and stakeholder engagement in disaster risk
management.
Conclusion
Ensuring a city has disaster-resilient urban governance is not an easy task. There are
many factors that need to be considered and are interrelated with each other. Disaster resilient
city governance is strongly influenced by infrastructure resilience, institutional resilience,
economic resilience and social resilience. These four things must be managed properly and
continuously in order to create a disaster resilient city. From the ten key success factors of
disaster resilient governance that have been presented in the discussion session, it can be
concluded that awareness of the importance of disaster mitigation is the initial guide to the
success of disaster resilient city governance. Besides the urgency of the existence of
leadership, communication, coordination, participation and information disclosure are also
considered as the backbone for the sustainability of disaster resilient governance.
Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure resilience refers to reducing the vulnerability of structures such as
buildings and transportation systems. Infrastructure resilience also refers to protective
capacities such as maintenance facilities health, vulnerability of buildings to hazards, critical
infrastructure, availability of roads for evacuation, post-disaster supply lines and community
capacity for response and recovery. One country that is trying to strengthen infrastructure
resilience in disaster management is the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands is one of the
areas that is often visited by Atlantic hurricanes. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan, the worst storm in
86 years, hit the largest island, Grand Cayman and damaged 90% of the buildings (Young,
2004). Electricity, water and communications were disrupted for months in some areas of the
Cayman Islands. The island then began the process of rebuilding on a large scale, and within
a national strategic framework for disaster risk reduction. Among other efforts, a 124-bed
hospital was built to Category 5 hurricane standards. This health facility remained functional
during and after Hurricane Ivan, alongside efforts to provide shelter for more than 1,000
people (CY Gov, 2005).
Institutional Resilience
Institutional resilience refers to the systems, governmental and non-governmental that
manage a community. Institutions, whether built to address disaster risk or not, can influence
the vulnerability of different community groups through several pathways and conditions
(Lebel et al., 2006). In the conceptualization of disaster risk, the influence of institutionalized
capacities and practices on disaster risk management is also influenced by ecological and
social resilience and the attributes of the disaster event itself.
In disaster risk management, the institutional and political development context is geared
towards answering five questions: when do disasters occur; who and what is at risk; who is
responsible; how does disaster risk change; and how to evaluate (IFA, 2006). Examples of
institutional resilience efforts have been made by Thailand and El Savador. Thailand through
the Baan Mankong program attempted to improve the condition of informal settlements by
launching an initiative to upgrade and improve the condition of slums and squatter
settlements. Thailand's slum upgrading and improvement program adopts a community-based
approach to solving the problems of unsafe housing and poor living conditions, and puts
residents at the heart of the process (Archer, 2012). The Baan Mankong program channels
funds in the form of infrastructure subsidies and housing loans directly to low-income
communities in informal settlements. The funding comes almost entirely from domestic
resources - a combination of national government, local government and community
contributions. Under this national program, people in illegal settlements can obtain legal land
tenure through various means such as direct purchase from the landowner or moving to
another location provided by the government.
Another example of efforts to improve institutional resilience is that of Santa Tecla.
Santa Tecla is part of the metropolitan area of El Salvador's capital, San Salvador. Santa
Tecla experienced two earthquakes in 2001. In just five seconds, landslides caused more than
700 deaths, displaced 20% of the city's land, and severely damaged 38% of the infrastructure.
The government of Santa Tecla thought deeply about what could be done to transform the
city and make it disaster-proof. The Santa Tecla government then realized the need to start
designing urban land management in a more responsible and sustainable manner. In this
regard, the government recognized the need for citizens to understand the importance of what
the government was doing or the small changes that would occur by encouraging
participation in the 'Mesas de Ciudadanos' (citizens' groups) program, which brings together
different stakeholder organizations in periodic discussions and decision-making.
Economic Resilience
Economic resilience refers to the economic diversity of communities such as the type of
employment, number of businesses, and their ability to function normally after a disaster.
Economic resilience in the concept of disaster resilience contains four definitions, namely:
(a) Robustness, the ability to avoid direct and indirect economic losses; (b) Redundancy, the
level of untapped or excess economic capacity; (c) Resourcefulness - stabilization measures;
and (d) Rapidity - the speed of return to pre-disaster conditions (Bruneau et al., 2003).
Australia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and China have all made efforts to improve
economic resilience after disasters. The city of Cairns, Australia sets up a regular budget
intended for disaster preparedness and response. The city has an annual operating budget that
includes funding for disaster management units, coordination centers, volunteer services and
community awareness programs. In recent years, its annual budget includes allocations for
the construction of buildings, emergency response vehicles and equipment, disaster risk
assessment software, flood warning network upgrades and drainage and flood mitigation
investments. These are the city's commitment to disaster risk reduction. These efforts are
complemented by investments and partnerships at the national level and also involve
professionals in the built environment, the private sector and academic institutions. Similar to
Australia, three other countries - the Philippines, China and Sri Lanka - also have policies to
support investment in disaster risk reduction. Since 2001, cities in the Philippines have been
required to allocate 5% of their local government budgets to disaster funds. Under the
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010; cities in the Philippines can spend
70% of this allocation on preparedness and relief/reserve equipment. Sri Lanka, through the
Ministry of Disaster Management announced that in 2011 the government allocated Rs. 8
billion for flood control programs in the capital, Colombo, while launching a safe urban
planning program to minimize disasters as part of the Resilient Cities Campaign. The funds
were used to clean canals, reconstruct drainage systems, and for other measures to prevent
flooding in Colombo. In China, provincial governors of two disaster-prone Chinese provinces
(Sichuan and Yunnan) committed additional resources to disaster reduction. The Sichuan
Provincial Government invested 2 billion Yuan to improve the local geological disaster
prevention system. The Yunnan Provincial Government, meanwhile, committed to invest at
least 10 billion yuan over ten years in local disaster prevention and assessment systems.
Social Resilience
Social resilience refers to the demographic profile of a community by gender, age,
ethnicity, socioeconomic status and other groupings as well as its social capital profile.
Although difficult to measure, social capital refers to the sense (values, norms and culture) of
community, the ability of groups of citizens to adapt and the sense of attachment to a place.
Strengthening social resilience in disaster management has been applied by Japan, Nepal and
China.
Japan has a "watch and learn" pattern where children and communities learn what they
call Mountain and City Risk as early as possible. Starting at the kindergarten level, Japanese
schools implement education on how to detect and react in disaster situations, conduct regular
disaster response drills and use "disaster watch". This time-consuming investment saved
many lives in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. One of the cities that implemented
this program is Saijo City. Saijo City is one of the cities with an old population in Japan. This
old population is a major problem in disaster response in Saijo City. To be more disaster
resilient, Saijo City needs the energy of young people who are not many. Therefore, Saijo
City implemented a disaster risk awareness program targeting school children. For 12 years,
the Saijo City government has focused on projects to improve the quality of the city's
physical environment, and "mountain and city observation" projects for children. Young
residents meet with the elderly to learn together about the risks faced by Saijo City and to
draw lessons from the 2004 typhoon disaster. Saijo City has developed a 'mountain and city
watching' handbook and established a teachers' association for disaster education and a
children's club for disaster prevention. On top of all this, a national disaster safety day was
implemented. Japan celebrates Disaster Prevention Day every year on September 1, the
anniversary of the great Kanto earthquake of 1923, and March 11, the anniversary of the
Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami.
Apart from Japan, Nepal and China are countries that also observe disaster days. In
Nepal, January 15 marks the anniversary of the great Nepal earthquake of 1934. In
Kathmandu, political leaders and prominent figures commemorated the event with activities
such as street parades, shaking table demonstrations, exhibitions on disaster-resistant
construction, street plays, interactive seminars, poster, art and other competitions, and
presentations for children. An earthquake simulation exercise was the highlight of the
commemorative event, with wide public participation and coverage by local media. China has
designated May 12 as National Disaster Safety Day, to commemorate the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake.
Disaster risk reduction and disaster resilience are integral parts of environmental,
economic, social and political sustainable development (ICLEI, 2010). To improve
governance towards resilience, there are five things that need to be considered, which include
(a) Understanding for whom the government regulates or manages;
(b) Use of a territorial approach in governance;
(c) Use of appropriate tools or methods for efficient land management; (d) Use of ICT and e-
governance; and (5) Implementation of innovative governance.
Keys to Successful Disaster Resilient City Governance
Cities that have been able to strengthen their resilience to disasters have provided some
of the following learning about how to manage cities to become disaster resilient. There are at
least ten key factors that determine whether a city becomes disaster resilient, as follows:
Having a Disaster Resilience Organization
Organizations that support the resilience of cities to disasters are needed to contribute to
the goal of sustainable urban development, a holistic approach in understanding potential
threats, and disaster risk governance that should be adopted. In this context, it is important to
involve decision-makers such as local governments, various officials and departments,
academia, business groups, and communities. Participation of these key groups and actors in
planning, implementation and monitoring, and effective organizational structures are
prerequisites for sound decision-making and practice of disaster risk reduction actions. This
will foster collaboration and partnership among all stakeholders for disaster risk prevention,
mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation. Recognizing that the
appropriate organizational structure will vary within and between countries, there are at least
three things that need to be considered, namely as follows:
Build and strengthen institutional capacity and coordination at the local level;
Building alliances and/or networks with all relevant stakeholder groups; and
Establish legislative frameworks and action mechanisms to achieve resilience.
Identify, Understand, and Utilize Current and Future Risk Scenarios
It is based on the premise that disaster risk management needs to be based on an
understanding of disaster risk scenarios across all dimensions of hazard characteristics, risk
exposure, capacity and vulnerability. Analysis and measurement of risk scenarios are
essential for informed decision-making, prioritizing programs or projects, and planning for
disaster risk reduction measures (prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response). The
need for both can be eliminated if local governments have a clear understanding of the risks
they face and fully discuss with the public and other stakeholders about risk scenarios and the
implementation of meaningful disaster risk reduction measures. There are two things that can
be done at this point, which are as follows:
Identify the most likely and most severe scenarios (worst case); and
Utilize information and measurement results from risk scenarios to make development
decisions by involving stakeholders.
Strengthening Financial Capacity for Disaster Resilience
Strengthening financial capacity can be done by including specific resources and specific
mechanisms that can be used to increase resilience. Financial resources can come from
municipal revenues, local or sectoral national distributions and allocations, public-private
partnerships and technical cooperation, as well as civil society and external organizations.
Financial mechanisms can include resilience financing and resilience self-help embedded in
broader development planning and spending. There are at least three ways in which efforts
can be made to increase awareness and financial capacity to build disaster resilient cities, as
follows:
Recognize the opportunity that building resilience to disasters equates to contributing to a
sound economic strategy;
Ensure a budget for resilience; and
Disseminate risk information for development decisions.
Development of Disaster Resilient City Design
Not all hazards or potential disasters can cause a disaster. A disaster occurs when a
potential disaster results in devastation that a community is unable to cope with on its own
without assistance from others. Therefore, preventive measures can help build better
resilience capacity, avoid and/or minimize disruption and destruction of networks and
infrastructure, which can lead to severe social and economic consequences. In addition,
integrating resilience concepts into infrastructure and socio-economic planning and
development will protect the city's development investments. In the context of developing
disaster-resilient urban design, there are several things that need to be considered and done,
namely as follows:
Place urban planning and land use management at the core of urban resilience through
land zoning and disaster-aware planning;
Mapping systemic and specific vulnerabilities; and
Mainstream resilience into ongoing updates of city master plans and sectoral strategies.
Protecting Natural Buffers to Improve Ecosystem Functions
Ecosystems provide essential services for disaster risk reduction as protection and
barriers against disaster threats and hazards. Ecosystems are central to disaster mitigation by
offering, for example, regulation against flooding and protecting steep slopes from potential
landslides. Ecosystems also increase the resilience of communities to withstand, cope with
and recover from disasters by providing multiple benefits such as food, firewood, clean water
and the like. Degraded ecosystems will not be able to provide such mitigation benefits and
resources, which in turn significantly increases community vulnerability. The process of
urban expansion changes the ecosystem fabric and often generates new risks and new
vulnerabilities. Recognizing the economic value and multiple benefits of healthy ecosystems
that act as natural buffers is important to reduce risks and contribute to the resilience and
sustainability of cities. Relevant ecosystem services may include, but are not limited to: water
retention or water infiltration; afforestation; urban vegetation; floodplains; mangroves, and
other coastal vegetation. Some things that need to be considered in efforts to increase
resilience through ecosystems are as follows:
Raising awareness of the impact of change environmental and ecosystem degradation on
disaster risk by recognizing the value and benefits of ecosystem services for disaster risk
prevention, protecting and or enhancing them as part of disaster risk reduction strategies
for the city;
Promote management of critical ecosystems to strengthen resilience to disasters;
Strengthen existing ecosystem management based on risk scenario assessments; and
Anticipate changes from climate trends, urbanization and make plans that allow
ecosystem services to remain.
Strengthening Institutional Capacity
Understanding the city's institutional background on past efforts towards risk reduction
or management and resilience building can help detect current gaps in local capacity to
coordinate and take action towards disaster prevention, mitigation, response and recovery.
Another advantage is to be able to identify the best and most appropriate approach effective to
strengthen relevant institutions in managing disaster risk. The institutions in question are the
central government and local governments. Other groups also have a role in disaster risk
management by complementing and supporting government measures. These groups include
the private sector that provides public services according to local needs, such as telephone,
water, energy, and health, as well as volunteer capacity or equipment in the event of a
disaster; owners and operators of industrial facilities; building owners (individuals or
companies); NGOs; professionals and academics, employers and labor organizations; and
cultural institutions and civil society organizations. Some things to note, are as follows:
Identifying the specific nature of each disaster risk and mapping the characteristics and
support needs of each institution. This requires reaching a common understanding of the
roles and responsibilities of each;
Building local capacity and strengthening participation in disaster management and
resilience building; and
Ensure consistency of disaster risk data and information among stakeholders. This can be
done by creating and implementing an information and data framework for resilience and
disaster risk reduction efforts.
Identifying, Understanding and Strengthening Social Capacity
Communities should take part in collective efforts to create disaster-resilient cities
through education, training and disaster awareness programs. All components of the
community must understand the hazards and risks they face, so that they can prepare and take
steps to cope with potential disasters. Education and capacity building programs are also key
to mobilizing citizen and community participation in disaster management strategies, such as
improving community preparedness and response to local early warnings. Some things that
need to be considered in improving community capacity to ensure disaster resilience are as
follows:
Establish a comprehensive response unit at the local level;
Develop risk reduction and resilience information;
Integrate disaster risk reduction and resilience into formal education and other training
programs;
Improving public education and awareness through information dissemination through the
business sector and media; and
Establish and maintain open access to data for disaster preparedness and response.
Improving Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure is an important part of urban governance and especially in relation to
emergency response conditions. Therefore, the government needs to pay special attention to
safety needs in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure so that it can continue to be
operational during emergencies. The main infrastructure required for city operations such as
transportation (roads, railways, airports and other ports), vehicle fuel supply lines,
telecommunications systems, utility systems, hospitals and health facilities, educational
institutions and school facilities, food supply chains, police and fire services, and so on. Some
things to note are as follows:
Measurement of critical infrastructure capacity and adequacy;
Strengthening vulnerable infrastructure (infrastructure replacement and procurement);
Build alliances with the private sector to leverage technical and financial resources and
ensure that private investments follow environmental and risk reduction norms; and
Recognize the need for service relevance and operational priorities during and after a
disaster.
Ensuring the Effectiveness of Disaster Response
Well-developed preparedness and response plans can not only save lives and property,
but also contribute to resilience and post-disaster recovery by reducing disaster impacts.
Preparedness efforts, early warning systems and communication systems will help ensure that
cities, communities and individuals threatened by hazards can act in sufficient time and
appropriately to reduce injuries, loss of life and damage to property or the environment.
Sustainability can be achieved if the community itself and local authorities understand the
importance and need for emergency preparedness and response at the local level. Some things
to consider are as follows:
Create and improve preparedness plans, including training;
Strengthening early warning systems; and
Improve the city's emergency response services.
Accelerate City Recovery and Build Back Better
Cities are built by multiple entities over decades or centuries, and are therefore very
difficult to rebuild in a short period of time. Until recently, there was a priority debate
between the need to rebuild quickly and rebuild safely and sustainably. A planned and
participatory recovery and reconstruction process will help the city to be able to reactivate
city life as soon as possible, restoring and rebuilding damaged infrastructure and restoring the
city's economy, empowering its citizens to rebuild their lives, homes and livelihoods.
Reconstruction should start as soon as possible, even before a potential disaster becomes a
disaster. Essentially, cities can foresee needs, establish operational mechanisms and assign
resources required as preparation and mitigation efforts, if supported by capable systems.
Recovery and rehabilitation can be planned long before a disaster occurs. Leadership,
coordination and funding are important parts of the effort. Some things to consider are as
follows:
Recovery must be addressed in multiple aspects and dimensions;
Include affected populations in efforts to define needs and recovery plans;
Recovery is an opportunity to build back better and enhance development;
Seeking resources, strengthening alliances and ensuring sustainability; and
Integrate disaster risk reduction in all investment decisions for recovery and
reconstruction.
Challenges in managing Disaster Resilient Cities
GSDRC (2014) outlines some of the challenges of managing disaster resilient cities in
terms of adaptive capacity, poverty and inequality, political economy, integration of disaster
resilience in aid operations and policies, disaster resilience analysis and measurement,
environmental support and government action, and financial conditions.
Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity relates to the capacity of systems, institutions, people and other
organisms to be able to adjust to potential damage, take benefit from opportunities or respond
to possible consequences (IPCC, 2014). Adaptive capacity includes prevention strategies,
which involve making choices to avoid events, and impact minimization strategies. Existing
research has highlighted that adaptive capacities are interrelated, and no single factor can
explain the level of disaster resilience in any context. For example, the role of indigenous
knowledge must be understood as closely linked to socio-economic variables that support or
undermine adaptation efforts.
Poverty and Inequality Conditions
The capacity of individuals, families or communities to prepare for, withstand and
respond to hazards or crises is enabled and constrained by social status, income and ethnicity
(Bosher et al., 2007). There is a common understanding that it is the poor who will suffer the
greatest losses from disasters (Oxfam, 2013; Shepherd et al., 2013). In 2008, the United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) noted that 94% of all people killed by
disasters between 1975-2000 were from low- or lower-middle-income groups (UNISDR,
2008). Disasters deprive people of assets and livelihoods, reproducing poverty and inequality
(UNISDR, 2008; Shepherd et al., 2013). Therefore, good disaster risk management can
reduce the impact of disasters, especially on the lower middle class (Shepherd et al., 2013).
Research in eight villages in coastal Andhra Pradesh in southern India concluded that
caste is a key factor determining access to resources essential to aid recovery from disasters
(Bosher et al., 2007). In this case, 'lower' castes lacked access to the assets, public facilities
and political networks necessary to aid their recovery. Gender is a tangible form of inequality
that shapes vulnerability to disasters (Ganapati, 2012, 2013; OCHA, 2012; Oxfam UK, 2012;
Turnbull et al., 2013). For women and girls, injustices in everyday life, not just during
disasters, tend to create greater risk, reduce life chances, and deepen material and non-
material losses (Bradshaw & Fordham, 2013). In addition, there is also great concern
expressed in the literature about the vulnerability of other high-risk populations: children, the
elderly, and people with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Such groups can be disadvantaged
and discriminated against, and can face a range of inequalities that magnify their vulnerability
risk (Peek et al., 2010). On the one hand, these disadvantaged groups are usually more
exposed and vulnerable to hazards. However, they can also contribute to building disaster
resilience (Oliver-Smith et al., 2012; Oxfam, 2013; Turnbull et al., 2013).
Political Economy
A number of aspects of a country's political economy can affect disaster resilience. One
of these is regulations relating to urban building codes and land use, poor regulations, or poor
enforcement of regulations, can create economic and social conditions that put vulnerable
groups at greater risk and that are difficult to remedy (GFDRR, 2010; Turnbull et al., 2013;
Wilkinson, 2012a). Another important issue, documented in several case studies, is how
corruption and patronage systems limit adaptive capacity and weaken disaster resilience. One
study in Bangladesh found that pre- and post-disaster interventions were co-opted and used to
increase the assets of political elites to the detriment of low-income groups (Mahmud &
Prowse, 2012). In many developing countries, public policy and political commitment to
disaster resilience is suboptimal. In a meta-review of evidence, Wilkinson (2012a) attributes
this to a lack of political interest and will, unfavorable economic and political incentives,
information gaps, and coordination problems.
Integration of Disaster Resilience in Aid Operation and Policy
In many cases, disaster resilience efforts are hampered by political economy, power and
inequality, including gender inequality (OCHA, 2012; Oxfam, 2013; UNISDR, 2011).
Therefore, Oxfam (2013) recommends a lens that focuses on politics and equality to aid
resilience, which focuses on several aspects including the following:
Social insurance and other programs that target disadvantaged groups who need greater
support and services to have equal opportunities;
Build pro-poor institutions at all levels, which represent and respond to the needs and
capacities of the most vulnerable;
Ensure rights and accountability, and the ability of women and men to assert their rights
and hold power holders accountable through participation in decision-making at all levels;
and
Provide free essential basic services for health and education, and social protection
Disaster Resilience Analysis and Measurement
Several organizations have developed guidelines for measuring disaster resilience. One
widely used guideline is the resilience risk framework, which uses the five dimensions of
resilience identified in the Hyogo Framework for Action (Twigg, 2009). These five
dimensions include governance, risk assessment, knowledge and education, risk management
and vulnerability reduction, and disaster preparedness and response. Other organizations'
frameworks measure different dimensions of resilience. Oxfam, for example, recently
developed a multi-dimensional framework that incorporates livelihoods, innovation capacity,
access to emergency resources, integrity of the natural environment, and social and
institutional capacity (Hughes et al., 2013).
Environmental Support and Government Action
In this context there are three things that need attention, namely: multi-level and multi-
stakeholder working in an enabling environment, supportive actions from the national
government, and supportive actions from local governments.
Multi-level and multi-stakeholder working in an enabling environment
Group interventions and participation in disaster risk reduction at different scales and levels
of action are critical. The policy and institutional environment that supports long-term
disaster resilience should also involve governments supporting the capacity of individuals,
civil society, the private sector and at-risk populations to manage and adapt to risk. Based on
desk and field research in disaster-prone areas in three countries, Reaching Resilience (n.d.)
found that a multi-stakeholder, multi-level approach is effective when integrating disaster risk
reduction, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction in its intervention efforts, as
follows:
Understand and create dialog about people at risk mapping;
Explore appropriate institutional and governance contexts;
Analyzing strengths and relationships between stakeholders;
Supportive actions from local government
Turnbull et al. (2013) provide detailed guidance on risk governance at the local level. To
strengthen risk prevention, efforts are needed to improve local stakeholders' access to public
information, hazard mapping, use of forecasting and early warning systems. Strategies for
dealing with high-impact disasters include the development of disaster management
committees, emergency services, emergency plans and emergency funds, as well as social
insurance mechanisms. Strategies to protect assets and services include developing disaster-
resistant building techniques for houses, schools and hospitals, and investing in water and
sanitation technologies for disaster risk reduction.
Financial Condition
Efforts to improve disaster resilience are typically characterized by shortcomings in
terms of funding, cost and effectiveness of interventions for resilience that are still limited,
yet the need is growing (DFID, 2011; GFDRR, 2010). Multi-year funding for disaster
resilience is often recommended, especially for protracted crises (Frankenberger et al., 2012).
Despite these challenges, several studies have shown that building disaster resilience is more
cost-effective than a late response (Cabot Venton et al., 2013; GFDRR, 2010). The cost-
effectiveness of prevention can essentially be improved through efforts, not least on open
access to information about hazards or risk exposure, provision of disaster infrastructure and
services, other disaster investments, and stakeholder engagement in disaster risk
management.
Conclusion
Ensuring a city has disaster-resilient urban governance is not an easy task. There are
many factors that need to be considered and are interrelated with each other. Disaster resilient
city governance is strongly influenced by infrastructure resilience, institutional resilience,
economic resilience and social resilience. These four things must be managed properly and
continuously in order to create a disaster resilient city. From the ten key success factors of
disaster resilient governance that have been presented in the discussion session, it can be
concluded that awareness of the importance of disaster mitigation is the initial guide to the
success of disaster resilient city governance. Besides the urgency of the existence of
leadership, communication, coordination, participation and information disclosure are also
considered as the backbone for the sustainability of disaster resilient governance.
Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure resilience refers to reducing the vulnerability of structures such as
buildings and transportation systems. Infrastructure resilience also refers to protective
capacities such as maintenance facilities health, vulnerability of buildings to hazards, critical
infrastructure, availability of roads for evacuation, post-disaster supply lines and community
capacity for response and recovery. One country that is trying to strengthen infrastructure
resilience in disaster management is the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands is one of the
areas that is often visited by Atlantic hurricanes. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan, the worst storm in
86 years, hit the largest island, Grand Cayman and damaged 90% of the buildings (Young,
2004). Electricity, water and communications were disrupted for months in some areas of the
Cayman Islands. The island then began the process of rebuilding on a large scale, and within
a national strategic framework for disaster risk reduction. Among other efforts, a 124-bed
hospital was built to Category 5 hurricane standards. This health facility remained functional
during and after Hurricane Ivan, alongside efforts to provide shelter for more than 1,000
people (CY Gov, 2005).
Institutional Resilience
Institutional resilience refers to the systems, governmental and non-governmental that
manage a community. Institutions, whether built to address disaster risk or not, can influence
the vulnerability of different community groups through several pathways and conditions
(Lebel et al., 2006). In the conceptualization of disaster risk, the influence of institutionalized
capacities and practices on disaster risk management is also influenced by ecological and
social resilience and the attributes of the disaster event itself.
In disaster risk management, the institutional and political development context is geared
towards answering five questions: when do disasters occur; who and what is at risk; who is
responsible; how does disaster risk change; and how to evaluate (IFA, 2006). Examples of
institutional resilience efforts have been made by Thailand and El Savador. Thailand through
the Baan Mankong program attempted to improve the condition of informal settlements by
launching an initiative to upgrade and improve the condition of slums and squatter
settlements. Thailand's slum upgrading and improvement program adopts a community-based
approach to solving the problems of unsafe housing and poor living conditions, and puts
residents at the heart of the process (Archer, 2012). The Baan Mankong program channels
funds in the form of infrastructure subsidies and housing loans directly to low-income
communities in informal settlements. The funding comes almost entirely from domestic
resources - a combination of national government, local government and community
contributions. Under this national program, people in illegal settlements can obtain legal land
tenure through various means such as direct purchase from the landowner or moving to
another location provided by the government.
Another example of efforts to improve institutional resilience is that of Santa Tecla.
Santa Tecla is part of the metropolitan area of El Salvador's capital, San Salvador. Santa
Tecla experienced two earthquakes in 2001. In just five seconds, landslides caused more than
700 deaths, displaced 20% of the city's land, and severely damaged 38% of the infrastructure.
The government of Santa Tecla thought deeply about what could be done to transform the
city and make it disaster-proof. The Santa Tecla government then realized the need to start
designing urban land management in a more responsible and sustainable manner. In this
regard, the government recognized the need for citizens to understand the importance of what
the government was doing or the small changes that would occur by encouraging
participation in the 'Mesas de Ciudadanos' (citizens' groups) program, which brings together
different stakeholder organizations in periodic discussions and decision-making.
Economic Resilience
Economic resilience refers to the economic diversity of communities such as the type of
employment, number of businesses, and their ability to function normally after a disaster.
Economic resilience in the concept of disaster resilience contains four definitions, namely:
(a) Robustness, the ability to avoid direct and indirect economic losses; (b) Redundancy, the
level of untapped or excess economic capacity; (c) Resourcefulness - stabilization measures;
and (d) Rapidity - the speed of return to pre-disaster conditions (Bruneau et al., 2003).
Australia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and China have all made efforts to improve
economic resilience after disasters. The city of Cairns, Australia sets up a regular budget
intended for disaster preparedness and response. The city has an annual operating budget that
includes funding for disaster management units, coordination centers, volunteer services and
community awareness programs. In recent years, its annual budget includes allocations for
the construction of buildings, emergency response vehicles and equipment, disaster risk
assessment software, flood warning network upgrades and drainage and flood mitigation
investments. These are the city's commitment to disaster risk reduction. These efforts are
complemented by investments and partnerships at the national level and also involve
professionals in the built environment, the private sector and academic institutions. Similar to
Australia, three other countries - the Philippines, China and Sri Lanka - also have policies to
support investment in disaster risk reduction. Since 2001, cities in the Philippines have been
required to allocate 5% of their local government budgets to disaster funds. Under the
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010; cities in the Philippines can spend
70% of this allocation on preparedness and relief/reserve equipment. Sri Lanka, through the
Ministry of Disaster Management announced that in 2011 the government allocated Rs. 8
billion for flood control programs in the capital, Colombo, while launching a safe urban
planning program to minimize disasters as part of the Resilient Cities Campaign. The funds
were used to clean canals, reconstruct drainage systems, and for other measures to prevent
flooding in Colombo. In China, provincial governors of two disaster-prone Chinese provinces
(Sichuan and Yunnan) committed additional resources to disaster reduction. The Sichuan
Provincial Government invested 2 billion Yuan to improve the local geological disaster
prevention system. The Yunnan Provincial Government, meanwhile, committed to invest at
least 10 billion yuan over ten years in local disaster prevention and assessment systems.
Social Resilience
Social resilience refers to the demographic profile of a community by gender, age,
ethnicity, socioeconomic status and other groupings as well as its social capital profile.
Although difficult to measure, social capital refers to the sense (values, norms and culture) of
community, the ability of groups of citizens to adapt and the sense of attachment to a place.
Strengthening social resilience in disaster management has been applied by Japan, Nepal and
China.
Japan has a "watch and learn" pattern where children and communities learn what they
call Mountain and City Risk as early as possible. Starting at the kindergarten level, Japanese
schools implement education on how to detect and react in disaster situations, conduct regular
disaster response drills and use "disaster watch". This time-consuming investment saved
many lives in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. One of the cities that implemented
this program is Saijo City. Saijo City is one of the cities with an old population in Japan. This
old population is a major problem in disaster response in Saijo City. To be more disaster
resilient, Saijo City needs the energy of young people who are not many. Therefore, Saijo
City implemented a disaster risk awareness program targeting school children. For 12 years,
the Saijo City government has focused on projects to improve the quality of the city's
physical environment, and "mountain and city observation" projects for children. Young
residents meet with the elderly to learn together about the risks faced by Saijo City and to
draw lessons from the 2004 typhoon disaster. Saijo City has developed a 'mountain and city
watching' handbook and established a teachers' association for disaster education and a
children's club for disaster prevention. On top of all this, a national disaster safety day was
implemented. Japan celebrates Disaster Prevention Day every year on September 1, the
anniversary of the great Kanto earthquake of 1923, and March 11, the anniversary of the
Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami.
Apart from Japan, Nepal and China are countries that also observe disaster days. In
Nepal, January 15 marks the anniversary of the great Nepal earthquake of 1934. In
Kathmandu, political leaders and prominent figures commemorated the event with activities
such as street parades, shaking table demonstrations, exhibitions on disaster-resistant
construction, street plays, interactive seminars, poster, art and other competitions, and
presentations for children. An earthquake simulation exercise was the highlight of the
commemorative event, with wide public participation and coverage by local media. China has
designated May 12 as National Disaster Safety Day, to commemorate the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake.
Disaster risk reduction and disaster resilience are integral parts of environmental,
economic, social and political sustainable development (ICLEI, 2010). To improve
governance towards resilience, there are five things that need to be considered, which include
(a) Understanding for whom the government regulates or manages;
(b) Use of a territorial approach in governance;
(c) Use of appropriate tools or methods for efficient land management; (d) Use of ICT and e-
governance; and (5) Implementation of innovative governance.
Keys to Successful Disaster Resilient City Governance
Cities that have been able to strengthen their resilience to disasters have provided some
of the following learning about how to manage cities to become disaster resilient. There are at
least ten key factors that determine whether a city becomes disaster resilient, as follows:
Having a Disaster Resilience Organization
Organizations that support the resilience of cities to disasters are needed to contribute to
the goal of sustainable urban development, a holistic approach in understanding potential
threats, and disaster risk governance that should be adopted. In this context, it is important to
involve decision-makers such as local governments, various officials and departments,
academia, business groups, and communities. Participation of these key groups and actors in
planning, implementation and monitoring, and effective organizational structures are
prerequisites for sound decision-making and practice of disaster risk reduction actions. This
will foster collaboration and partnership among all stakeholders for disaster risk prevention,
mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation. Recognizing that the
appropriate organizational structure will vary within and between countries, there are at least
three things that need to be considered, namely as follows:
Build and strengthen institutional capacity and coordination at the local level;
Building alliances and/or networks with all relevant stakeholder groups; and
Establish legislative frameworks and action mechanisms to achieve resilience.
Identify, Understand, and Utilize Current and Future Risk Scenarios
It is based on the premise that disaster risk management needs to be based on an
understanding of disaster risk scenarios across all dimensions of hazard characteristics, risk
exposure, capacity and vulnerability. Analysis and measurement of risk scenarios are
essential for informed decision-making, prioritizing programs or projects, and planning for
disaster risk reduction measures (prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response). The
need for both can be eliminated if local governments have a clear understanding of the risks
they face and fully discuss with the public and other stakeholders about risk scenarios and the
implementation of meaningful disaster risk reduction measures. There are two things that can
be done at this point, which are as follows:
Identify the most likely and most severe scenarios (worst case); and
Utilize information and measurement results from risk scenarios to make development
decisions by involving stakeholders.
Strengthening Financial Capacity for Disaster Resilience
Strengthening financial capacity can be done by including specific resources and specific
mechanisms that can be used to increase resilience. Financial resources can come from
municipal revenues, local or sectoral national distributions and allocations, public-private
partnerships and technical cooperation, as well as civil society and external organizations.
Financial mechanisms can include resilience financing and resilience self-help embedded in
broader development planning and spending. There are at least three ways in which efforts
can be made to increase awareness and financial capacity to build disaster resilient cities, as
follows:
Recognize the opportunity that building resilience to disasters equates to contributing to a
sound economic strategy;
Ensure a budget for resilience; and
Disseminate risk information for development decisions.
Development of Disaster Resilient City Design
Not all hazards or potential disasters can cause a disaster. A disaster occurs when a
potential disaster results in devastation that a community is unable to cope with on its own
without assistance from others. Therefore, preventive measures can help build better
resilience capacity, avoid and/or minimize disruption and destruction of networks and
infrastructure, which can lead to severe social and economic consequences. In addition,
integrating resilience concepts into infrastructure and socio-economic planning and
development will protect the city's development investments. In the context of developing
disaster-resilient urban design, there are several things that need to be considered and done,
namely as follows:
Place urban planning and land use management at the core of urban resilience through
land zoning and disaster-aware planning;
Mapping systemic and specific vulnerabilities; and
Mainstream resilience into ongoing updates of city master plans and sectoral strategies.
Protecting Natural Buffers to Improve Ecosystem Functions
Ecosystems provide essential services for disaster risk reduction as protection and
barriers against disaster threats and hazards. Ecosystems are central to disaster mitigation by
offering, for example, regulation against flooding and protecting steep slopes from potential
landslides. Ecosystems also increase the resilience of communities to withstand, cope with
and recover from disasters by providing multiple benefits such as food, firewood, clean water
and the like. Degraded ecosystems will not be able to provide such mitigation benefits and
resources, which in turn significantly increases community vulnerability. The process of
urban expansion changes the ecosystem fabric and often generates new risks and new
vulnerabilities. Recognizing the economic value and multiple benefits of healthy ecosystems
that act as natural buffers is important to reduce risks and contribute to the resilience and
sustainability of cities. Relevant ecosystem services may include, but are not limited to: water
retention or water infiltration; afforestation; urban vegetation; floodplains; mangroves, and
other coastal vegetation. Some things that need to be considered in efforts to increase
resilience through ecosystems are as follows:
Raising awareness of the impact of change environmental and ecosystem degradation on
disaster risk by recognizing the value and benefits of ecosystem services for disaster risk
prevention, protecting and or enhancing them as part of disaster risk reduction strategies
for the city;
Promote management of critical ecosystems to strengthen resilience to disasters;
Strengthen existing ecosystem management based on risk scenario assessments; and
Anticipate changes from climate trends, urbanization and make plans that allow
ecosystem services to remain.
Strengthening Institutional Capacity
Understanding the city's institutional background on past efforts towards risk reduction
or management and resilience building can help detect current gaps in local capacity to
coordinate and take action towards disaster prevention, mitigation, response and recovery.
Another advantage is to be able to identify the best and most appropriate approach effective to
strengthen relevant institutions in managing disaster risk. The institutions in question are the
central government and local governments. Other groups also have a role in disaster risk
management by complementing and supporting government measures. These groups include
the private sector that provides public services according to local needs, such as telephone,
water, energy, and health, as well as volunteer capacity or equipment in the event of a
disaster; owners and operators of industrial facilities; building owners (individuals or
companies); NGOs; professionals and academics, employers and labor organizations; and
cultural institutions and civil society organizations. Some things to note, are as follows:
Identifying the specific nature of each disaster risk and mapping the characteristics and
support needs of each institution. This requires reaching a common understanding of the
roles and responsibilities of each;
Building local capacity and strengthening participation in disaster management and
resilience building; and
Ensure consistency of disaster risk data and information among stakeholders. This can be
done by creating and implementing an information and data framework for resilience and
disaster risk reduction efforts.
Identifying, Understanding and Strengthening Social Capacity
Communities should take part in collective efforts to create disaster-resilient cities
through education, training and disaster awareness programs. All components of the
community must understand the hazards and risks they face, so that they can prepare and take
steps to cope with potential disasters. Education and capacity building programs are also key
to mobilizing citizen and community participation in disaster management strategies, such as
improving community preparedness and response to local early warnings. Some things that
need to be considered in improving community capacity to ensure disaster resilience are as
follows:
Establish a comprehensive response unit at the local level;
Develop risk reduction and resilience information;
Integrate disaster risk reduction and resilience into formal education and other training
programs;
Improving public education and awareness through information dissemination through the
business sector and media; and
Establish and maintain open access to data for disaster preparedness and response.
Improving Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure is an important part of urban governance and especially in relation to
emergency response conditions. Therefore, the government needs to pay special attention to
safety needs in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure so that it can continue to be
operational during emergencies. The main infrastructure required for city operations such as
transportation (roads, railways, airports and other ports), vehicle fuel supply lines,
telecommunications systems, utility systems, hospitals and health facilities, educational
institutions and school facilities, food supply chains, police and fire services, and so on. Some
things to note are as follows:
Measurement of critical infrastructure capacity and adequacy;
Strengthening vulnerable infrastructure (infrastructure replacement and procurement);
Build alliances with the private sector to leverage technical and financial resources and
ensure that private investments follow environmental and risk reduction norms; and
Recognize the need for service relevance and operational priorities during and after a
disaster.
Ensuring the Effectiveness of Disaster Response
Well-developed preparedness and response plans can not only save lives and property,
but also contribute to resilience and post-disaster recovery by reducing disaster impacts.
Preparedness efforts, early warning systems and communication systems will help ensure that
cities, communities and individuals threatened by hazards can act in sufficient time and
appropriately to reduce injuries, loss of life and damage to property or the environment.
Sustainability can be achieved if the community itself and local authorities understand the
importance and need for emergency preparedness and response at the local level. Some things
to consider are as follows:
Create and improve preparedness plans, including training;
Strengthening early warning systems; and
Improve the city's emergency response services.
Accelerate City Recovery and Build Back Better
Cities are built by multiple entities over decades or centuries, and are therefore very
difficult to rebuild in a short period of time. Until recently, there was a priority debate
between the need to rebuild quickly and rebuild safely and sustainably. A planned and
participatory recovery and reconstruction process will help the city to be able to reactivate
city life as soon as possible, restoring and rebuilding damaged infrastructure and restoring the
city's economy, empowering its citizens to rebuild their lives, homes and livelihoods.
Reconstruction should start as soon as possible, even before a potential disaster becomes a
disaster. Essentially, cities can foresee needs, establish operational mechanisms and assign
resources required as preparation and mitigation efforts, if supported by capable systems.
Recovery and rehabilitation can be planned long before a disaster occurs. Leadership,
coordination and funding are important parts of the effort. Some things to consider are as
follows:
Recovery must be addressed in multiple aspects and dimensions;
Include affected populations in efforts to define needs and recovery plans;
Recovery is an opportunity to build back better and enhance development;
Seeking resources, strengthening alliances and ensuring sustainability; and
Integrate disaster risk reduction in all investment decisions for recovery and
reconstruction.
Challenges in managing Disaster Resilient Cities
GSDRC (2014) outlines some of the challenges of managing disaster resilient cities in
terms of adaptive capacity, poverty and inequality, political economy, integration of disaster
resilience in aid operations and policies, disaster resilience analysis and measurement,
environmental support and government action, and financial conditions.
Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity relates to the capacity of systems, institutions, people and other
organisms to be able to adjust to potential damage, take benefit from opportunities or respond
to possible consequences (IPCC, 2014). Adaptive capacity includes prevention strategies,
which involve making choices to avoid events, and impact minimization strategies. Existing
research has highlighted that adaptive capacities are interrelated, and no single factor can
explain the level of disaster resilience in any context. For example, the role of indigenous
knowledge must be understood as closely linked to socio-economic variables that support or
undermine adaptation efforts.
Poverty and Inequality Conditions
The capacity of individuals, families or communities to prepare for, withstand and
respond to hazards or crises is enabled and constrained by social status, income and ethnicity
(Bosher et al., 2007). There is a common understanding that it is the poor who will suffer the
greatest losses from disasters (Oxfam, 2013; Shepherd et al., 2013). In 2008, the United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) noted that 94% of all people killed by
disasters between 1975-2000 were from low- or lower-middle-income groups (UNISDR,
2008). Disasters deprive people of assets and livelihoods, reproducing poverty and inequality
(UNISDR, 2008; Shepherd et al., 2013). Therefore, good disaster risk management can
reduce the impact of disasters, especially on the lower middle class (Shepherd et al., 2013).
Research in eight villages in coastal Andhra Pradesh in southern India concluded that
caste is a key factor determining access to resources essential to aid recovery from disasters
(Bosher et al., 2007). In this case, 'lower' castes lacked access to the assets, public facilities
and political networks necessary to aid their recovery. Gender is a tangible form of inequality
that shapes vulnerability to disasters (Ganapati, 2012, 2013; OCHA, 2012; Oxfam UK, 2012;
Turnbull et al., 2013). For women and girls, injustices in everyday life, not just during
disasters, tend to create greater risk, reduce life chances, and deepen material and non-
material losses (Bradshaw & Fordham, 2013). In addition, there is also great concern
expressed in the literature about the vulnerability of other high-risk populations: children, the
elderly, and people with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Such groups can be disadvantaged
and discriminated against, and can face a range of inequalities that magnify their vulnerability
risk (Peek et al., 2010). On the one hand, these disadvantaged groups are usually more
exposed and vulnerable to hazards. However, they can also contribute to building disaster
resilience (Oliver-Smith et al., 2012; Oxfam, 2013; Turnbull et al., 2013).
Political Economy
A number of aspects of a country's political economy can affect disaster resilience. One
of these is regulations relating to urban building codes and land use, poor regulations, or poor
enforcement of regulations, can create economic and social conditions that put vulnerable
groups at greater risk and that are difficult to remedy (GFDRR, 2010; Turnbull et al., 2013;
Wilkinson, 2012a). Another important issue, documented in several case studies, is how
corruption and patronage systems limit adaptive capacity and weaken disaster resilience. One
study in Bangladesh found that pre- and post-disaster interventions were co-opted and used to
increase the assets of political elites to the detriment of low-income groups (Mahmud &
Prowse, 2012). In many developing countries, public policy and political commitment to
disaster resilience is suboptimal. In a meta-review of evidence, Wilkinson (2012a) attributes
this to a lack of political interest and will, unfavorable economic and political incentives,
information gaps, and coordination problems.
Integration of Disaster Resilience in Aid Operation and Policy
In many cases, disaster resilience efforts are hampered by political economy, power and
inequality, including gender inequality (OCHA, 2012; Oxfam, 2013; UNISDR, 2011).
Therefore, Oxfam (2013) recommends a lens that focuses on politics and equality to aid
resilience, which focuses on several aspects including the following:
Social insurance and other programs that target disadvantaged groups who need greater
support and services to have equal opportunities;
Build pro-poor institutions at all levels, which represent and respond to the needs and
capacities of the most vulnerable;
Ensure rights and accountability, and the ability of women and men to assert their rights
and hold power holders accountable through participation in decision-making at all levels;
and
Provide free essential basic services for health and education, and social protection
Disaster Resilience Analysis and Measurement
Several organizations have developed guidelines for measuring disaster resilience. One
widely used guideline is the resilience risk framework, which uses the five dimensions of
resilience identified in the Hyogo Framework for Action (Twigg, 2009). These five
dimensions include governance, risk assessment, knowledge and education, risk management
and vulnerability reduction, and disaster preparedness and response. Other organizations'
frameworks measure different dimensions of resilience. Oxfam, for example, recently
developed a multi-dimensional framework that incorporates livelihoods, innovation capacity,
access to emergency resources, integrity of the natural environment, and social and
institutional capacity (Hughes et al., 2013).
Environmental Support and Government Action
In this context there are three things that need attention, namely: multi-level and multi-
stakeholder working in an enabling environment, supportive actions from the national
government, and supportive actions from local governments.
Multi-level and multi-stakeholder working in an enabling environment
Group interventions and participation in disaster risk reduction at different scales and levels
of action are critical. The policy and institutional environment that supports long-term
disaster resilience should also involve governments supporting the capacity of individuals,
civil society, the private sector and at-risk populations to manage and adapt to risk. Based on
desk and field research in disaster-prone areas in three countries, Reaching Resilience (n.d.)
found that a multi-stakeholder, multi-level approach is effective when integrating disaster risk
reduction, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction in its intervention efforts, as
follows:
Understand and create dialog about people at risk mapping;
Explore appropriate institutional and governance contexts;
Analyzing strengths and relationships between stakeholders;
Supportive actions from local government
Turnbull et al. (2013) provide detailed guidance on risk governance at the local level. To
strengthen risk prevention, efforts are needed to improve local stakeholders' access to public
information, hazard mapping, use of forecasting and early warning systems. Strategies for
dealing with high-impact disasters include the development of disaster management
committees, emergency services, emergency plans and emergency funds, as well as social
insurance mechanisms. Strategies to protect assets and services include developing disaster-
resistant building techniques for houses, schools and hospitals, and investing in water and
sanitation technologies for disaster risk reduction.
Financial Condition
Efforts to improve disaster resilience are typically characterized by shortcomings in
terms of funding, cost and effectiveness of interventions for resilience that are still limited,
yet the need is growing (DFID, 2011; GFDRR, 2010). Multi-year funding for disaster
resilience is often recommended, especially for protracted crises (Frankenberger et al., 2012).
Despite these challenges, several studies have shown that building disaster resilience is more
cost-effective than a late response (Cabot Venton et al., 2013; GFDRR, 2010). The cost-
effectiveness of prevention can essentially be improved through efforts, not least on open
access to information about hazards or risk exposure, provision of disaster infrastructure and
services, other disaster investments, and stakeholder engagement in disaster risk
management.
Conclusion
Ensuring a city has disaster-resilient urban governance is not an easy task. There are
many factors that need to be considered and are interrelated with each other. Disaster resilient
city governance is strongly influenced by infrastructure resilience, institutional resilience,
economic resilience and social resilience. These four things must be managed properly and
continuously in order to create a disaster resilient city. From the ten key success factors of
disaster resilient governance that have been presented in the discussion session, it can be
concluded that awareness of the importance of disaster mitigation is the initial guide to the
success of disaster resilient city governance. Besides the urgency of the existence of
leadership, communication, coordination, participation and information disclosure are also
considered as the backbone for the sustainability of disaster resilient governance.
Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure resilience refers to reducing the vulnerability of structures such as
buildings and transportation systems. Infrastructure resilience also refers to protective
capacities such as maintenance facilities health, vulnerability of buildings to hazards, critical
infrastructure, availability of roads for evacuation, post-disaster supply lines and community
capacity for response and recovery. One country that is trying to strengthen infrastructure
resilience in disaster management is the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands is one of the
areas that is often visited by Atlantic hurricanes. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan, the worst storm in
86 years, hit the largest island, Grand Cayman and damaged 90% of the buildings (Young,
2004). Electricity, water and communications were disrupted for months in some areas of the
Cayman Islands. The island then began the process of rebuilding on a large scale, and within
a national strategic framework for disaster risk reduction. Among other efforts, a 124-bed
hospital was built to Category 5 hurricane standards. This health facility remained functional
during and after Hurricane Ivan, alongside efforts to provide shelter for more than 1,000
people (CY Gov, 2005).
Institutional Resilience
Institutional resilience refers to the systems, governmental and non-governmental that
manage a community. Institutions, whether built to address disaster risk or not, can influence
the vulnerability of different community groups through several pathways and conditions
(Lebel et al., 2006). In the conceptualization of disaster risk, the influence of institutionalized
capacities and practices on disaster risk management is also influenced by ecological and
social resilience and the attributes of the disaster event itself.
In disaster risk management, the institutional and political development context is geared
towards answering five questions: when do disasters occur; who and what is at risk; who is
responsible; how does disaster risk change; and how to evaluate (IFA, 2006). Examples of
institutional resilience efforts have been made by Thailand and El Savador. Thailand through
the Baan Mankong program attempted to improve the condition of informal settlements by
launching an initiative to upgrade and improve the condition of slums and squatter
settlements. Thailand's slum upgrading and improvement program adopts a community-based
approach to solving the problems of unsafe housing and poor living conditions, and puts
residents at the heart of the process (Archer, 2012). The Baan Mankong program channels
funds in the form of infrastructure subsidies and housing loans directly to low-income
communities in informal settlements. The funding comes almost entirely from domestic
resources - a combination of national government, local government and community
contributions. Under this national program, people in illegal settlements can obtain legal land
tenure through various means such as direct purchase from the landowner or moving to
another location provided by the government.
Another example of efforts to improve institutional resilience is that of Santa Tecla.
Santa Tecla is part of the metropolitan area of El Salvador's capital, San Salvador. Santa
Tecla experienced two earthquakes in 2001. In just five seconds, landslides caused more than
700 deaths, displaced 20% of the city's land, and severely damaged 38% of the infrastructure.
The government of Santa Tecla thought deeply about what could be done to transform the
city and make it disaster-proof. The Santa Tecla government then realized the need to start
designing urban land management in a more responsible and sustainable manner. In this
regard, the government recognized the need for citizens to understand the importance of what
the government was doing or the small changes that would occur by encouraging
participation in the 'Mesas de Ciudadanos' (citizens' groups) program, which brings together
different stakeholder organizations in periodic discussions and decision-making.
Economic Resilience
Economic resilience refers to the economic diversity of communities such as the type of
employment, number of businesses, and their ability to function normally after a disaster.
Economic resilience in the concept of disaster resilience contains four definitions, namely:
(a) Robustness, the ability to avoid direct and indirect economic losses; (b) Redundancy, the
level of untapped or excess economic capacity; (c) Resourcefulness - stabilization measures;
and (d) Rapidity - the speed of return to pre-disaster conditions (Bruneau et al., 2003).
Australia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and China have all made efforts to improve
economic resilience after disasters. The city of Cairns, Australia sets up a regular budget
intended for disaster preparedness and response. The city has an annual operating budget that
includes funding for disaster management units, coordination centers, volunteer services and
community awareness programs. In recent years, its annual budget includes allocations for
the construction of buildings, emergency response vehicles and equipment, disaster risk
assessment software, flood warning network upgrades and drainage and flood mitigation
investments. These are the city's commitment to disaster risk reduction. These efforts are
complemented by investments and partnerships at the national level and also involve
professionals in the built environment, the private sector and academic institutions. Similar to
Australia, three other countries - the Philippines, China and Sri Lanka - also have policies to
support investment in disaster risk reduction. Since 2001, cities in the Philippines have been
required to allocate 5% of their local government budgets to disaster funds. Under the
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010; cities in the Philippines can spend
70% of this allocation on preparedness and relief/reserve equipment. Sri Lanka, through the
Ministry of Disaster Management announced that in 2011 the government allocated Rs. 8
billion for flood control programs in the capital, Colombo, while launching a safe urban
planning program to minimize disasters as part of the Resilient Cities Campaign. The funds
were used to clean canals, reconstruct drainage systems, and for other measures to prevent
flooding in Colombo. In China, provincial governors of two disaster-prone Chinese provinces
(Sichuan and Yunnan) committed additional resources to disaster reduction. The Sichuan
Provincial Government invested 2 billion Yuan to improve the local geological disaster
prevention system. The Yunnan Provincial Government, meanwhile, committed to invest at
least 10 billion yuan over ten years in local disaster prevention and assessment systems.
Social Resilience
Social resilience refers to the demographic profile of a community by gender, age,
ethnicity, socioeconomic status and other groupings as well as its social capital profile.
Although difficult to measure, social capital refers to the sense (values, norms and culture) of
community, the ability of groups of citizens to adapt and the sense of attachment to a place.
Strengthening social resilience in disaster management has been applied by Japan, Nepal and
China.
Japan has a "watch and learn" pattern where children and communities learn what they
call Mountain and City Risk as early as possible. Starting at the kindergarten level, Japanese
schools implement education on how to detect and react in disaster situations, conduct regular
disaster response drills and use "disaster watch". This time-consuming investment saved
many lives in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. One of the cities that implemented
this program is Saijo City. Saijo City is one of the cities with an old population in Japan. This
old population is a major problem in disaster response in Saijo City. To be more disaster
resilient, Saijo City needs the energy of young people who are not many. Therefore, Saijo
City implemented a disaster risk awareness program targeting school children. For 12 years,
the Saijo City government has focused on projects to improve the quality of the city's
physical environment, and "mountain and city observation" projects for children. Young
residents meet with the elderly to learn together about the risks faced by Saijo City and to
draw lessons from the 2004 typhoon disaster. Saijo City has developed a 'mountain and city
watching' handbook and established a teachers' association for disaster education and a
children's club for disaster prevention. On top of all this, a national disaster safety day was
implemented. Japan celebrates Disaster Prevention Day every year on September 1, the
anniversary of the great Kanto earthquake of 1923, and March 11, the anniversary of the
Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami.
Apart from Japan, Nepal and China are countries that also observe disaster days. In
Nepal, January 15 marks the anniversary of the great Nepal earthquake of 1934. In
Kathmandu, political leaders and prominent figures commemorated the event with activities
such as street parades, shaking table demonstrations, exhibitions on disaster-resistant
construction, street plays, interactive seminars, poster, art and other competitions, and
presentations for children. An earthquake simulation exercise was the highlight of the
commemorative event, with wide public participation and coverage by local media. China has
designated May 12 as National Disaster Safety Day, to commemorate the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake.
Disaster risk reduction and disaster resilience are integral parts of environmental,
economic, social and political sustainable development (ICLEI, 2010). To improve
governance towards resilience, there are five things that need to be considered, which include
(a) Understanding for whom the government regulates or manages;
(b) Use of a territorial approach in governance;
(c) Use of appropriate tools or methods for efficient land management; (d) Use of ICT and e-
governance; and (5) Implementation of innovative governance.
Keys to Successful Disaster Resilient City Governance
Cities that have been able to strengthen their resilience to disasters have provided some
of the following learning about how to manage cities to become disaster resilient. There are at
least ten key factors that determine whether a city becomes disaster resilient, as follows:
Having a Disaster Resilience Organization
Organizations that support the resilience of cities to disasters are needed to contribute to
the goal of sustainable urban development, a holistic approach in understanding potential
threats, and disaster risk governance that should be adopted. In this context, it is important to
involve decision-makers such as local governments, various officials and departments,
academia, business groups, and communities. Participation of these key groups and actors in
planning, implementation and monitoring, and effective organizational structures are
prerequisites for sound decision-making and practice of disaster risk reduction actions. This
will foster collaboration and partnership among all stakeholders for disaster risk prevention,
mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation. Recognizing that the
appropriate organizational structure will vary within and between countries, there are at least
three things that need to be considered, namely as follows:
Build and strengthen institutional capacity and coordination at the local level;
Building alliances and/or networks with all relevant stakeholder groups; and
Establish legislative frameworks and action mechanisms to achieve resilience.
Identify, Understand, and Utilize Current and Future Risk Scenarios
It is based on the premise that disaster risk management needs to be based on an
understanding of disaster risk scenarios across all dimensions of hazard characteristics, risk
exposure, capacity and vulnerability. Analysis and measurement of risk scenarios are
essential for informed decision-making, prioritizing programs or projects, and planning for
disaster risk reduction measures (prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response). The
need for both can be eliminated if local governments have a clear understanding of the risks
they face and fully discuss with the public and other stakeholders about risk scenarios and the
implementation of meaningful disaster risk reduction measures. There are two things that can
be done at this point, which are as follows:
Identify the most likely and most severe scenarios (worst case); and
Utilize information and measurement results from risk scenarios to make development
decisions by involving stakeholders.
Strengthening Financial Capacity for Disaster Resilience
Strengthening financial capacity can be done by including specific resources and specific
mechanisms that can be used to increase resilience. Financial resources can come from
municipal revenues, local or sectoral national distributions and allocations, public-private
partnerships and technical cooperation, as well as civil society and external organizations.
Financial mechanisms can include resilience financing and resilience self-help embedded in
broader development planning and spending. There are at least three ways in which efforts
can be made to increase awareness and financial capacity to build disaster resilient cities, as
follows:
Recognize the opportunity that building resilience to disasters equates to contributing to a
sound economic strategy;
Ensure a budget for resilience; and
Disseminate risk information for development decisions.
Development of Disaster Resilient City Design
Not all hazards or potential disasters can cause a disaster. A disaster occurs when a
potential disaster results in devastation that a community is unable to cope with on its own
without assistance from others. Therefore, preventive measures can help build better
resilience capacity, avoid and/or minimize disruption and destruction of networks and
infrastructure, which can lead to severe social and economic consequences. In addition,
integrating resilience concepts into infrastructure and socio-economic planning and
development will protect the city's development investments. In the context of developing
disaster-resilient urban design, there are several things that need to be considered and done,
namely as follows:
Place urban planning and land use management at the core of urban resilience through
land zoning and disaster-aware planning;
Mapping systemic and specific vulnerabilities; and
Mainstream resilience into ongoing updates of city master plans and sectoral strategies.
Protecting Natural Buffers to Improve Ecosystem Functions
Ecosystems provide essential services for disaster risk reduction as protection and
barriers against disaster threats and hazards. Ecosystems are central to disaster mitigation by
offering, for example, regulation against flooding and protecting steep slopes from potential
landslides. Ecosystems also increase the resilience of communities to withstand, cope with
and recover from disasters by providing multiple benefits such as food, firewood, clean water
and the like. Degraded ecosystems will not be able to provide such mitigation benefits and
resources, which in turn significantly increases community vulnerability. The process of
urban expansion changes the ecosystem fabric and often generates new risks and new
vulnerabilities. Recognizing the economic value and multiple benefits of healthy ecosystems
that act as natural buffers is important to reduce risks and contribute to the resilience and
sustainability of cities. Relevant ecosystem services may include, but are not limited to: water
retention or water infiltration; afforestation; urban vegetation; floodplains; mangroves, and
other coastal vegetation. Some things that need to be considered in efforts to increase
resilience through ecosystems are as follows:
Raising awareness of the impact of change environmental and ecosystem degradation on
disaster risk by recognizing the value and benefits of ecosystem services for disaster risk
prevention, protecting and or enhancing them as part of disaster risk reduction strategies
for the city;
Promote management of critical ecosystems to strengthen resilience to disasters;
Strengthen existing ecosystem management based on risk scenario assessments; and
Anticipate changes from climate trends, urbanization and make plans that allow
ecosystem services to remain.
Strengthening Institutional Capacity
Understanding the city's institutional background on past efforts towards risk reduction
or management and resilience building can help detect current gaps in local capacity to
coordinate and take action towards disaster prevention, mitigation, response and recovery.
Another advantage is to be able to identify the best and most appropriate approach effective to
strengthen relevant institutions in managing disaster risk. The institutions in question are the
central government and local governments. Other groups also have a role in disaster risk
management by complementing and supporting government measures. These groups include
the private sector that provides public services according to local needs, such as telephone,
water, energy, and health, as well as volunteer capacity or equipment in the event of a
disaster; owners and operators of industrial facilities; building owners (individuals or
companies); NGOs; professionals and academics, employers and labor organizations; and
cultural institutions and civil society organizations. Some things to note, are as follows:
Identifying the specific nature of each disaster risk and mapping the characteristics and
support needs of each institution. This requires reaching a common understanding of the
roles and responsibilities of each;
Building local capacity and strengthening participation in disaster management and
resilience building; and
Ensure consistency of disaster risk data and information among stakeholders. This can be
done by creating and implementing an information and data framework for resilience and
disaster risk reduction efforts.
Identifying, Understanding and Strengthening Social Capacity
Communities should take part in collective efforts to create disaster-resilient cities
through education, training and disaster awareness programs. All components of the
community must understand the hazards and risks they face, so that they can prepare and take
steps to cope with potential disasters. Education and capacity building programs are also key
to mobilizing citizen and community participation in disaster management strategies, such as
improving community preparedness and response to local early warnings. Some things that
need to be considered in improving community capacity to ensure disaster resilience are as
follows:
Establish a comprehensive response unit at the local level;
Develop risk reduction and resilience information;
Integrate disaster risk reduction and resilience into formal education and other training
programs;
Improving public education and awareness through information dissemination through the
business sector and media; and
Establish and maintain open access to data for disaster preparedness and response.
Improving Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure is an important part of urban governance and especially in relation to
emergency response conditions. Therefore, the government needs to pay special attention to
safety needs in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure so that it can continue to be
operational during emergencies. The main infrastructure required for city operations such as
transportation (roads, railways, airports and other ports), vehicle fuel supply lines,
telecommunications systems, utility systems, hospitals and health facilities, educational
institutions and school facilities, food supply chains, police and fire services, and so on. Some
things to note are as follows:
Measurement of critical infrastructure capacity and adequacy;
Strengthening vulnerable infrastructure (infrastructure replacement and procurement);
Build alliances with the private sector to leverage technical and financial resources and
ensure that private investments follow environmental and risk reduction norms; and
Recognize the need for service relevance and operational priorities during and after a
disaster.
Ensuring the Effectiveness of Disaster Response
Well-developed preparedness and response plans can not only save lives and property,
but also contribute to resilience and post-disaster recovery by reducing disaster impacts.
Preparedness efforts, early warning systems and communication systems will help ensure that
cities, communities and individuals threatened by hazards can act in sufficient time and
appropriately to reduce injuries, loss of life and damage to property or the environment.
Sustainability can be achieved if the community itself and local authorities understand the
importance and need for emergency preparedness and response at the local level. Some things
to consider are as follows:
Create and improve preparedness plans, including training;
Strengthening early warning systems; and
Improve the city's emergency response services.
Accelerate City Recovery and Build Back Better
Cities are built by multiple entities over decades or centuries, and are therefore very
difficult to rebuild in a short period of time. Until recently, there was a priority debate
between the need to rebuild quickly and rebuild safely and sustainably. A planned and
participatory recovery and reconstruction process will help the city to be able to reactivate
city life as soon as possible, restoring and rebuilding damaged infrastructure and restoring the
city's economy, empowering its citizens to rebuild their lives, homes and livelihoods.
Reconstruction should start as soon as possible, even before a potential disaster becomes a
disaster. Essentially, cities can foresee needs, establish operational mechanisms and assign
resources required as preparation and mitigation efforts, if supported by capable systems.
Recovery and rehabilitation can be planned long before a disaster occurs. Leadership,
coordination and funding are important parts of the effort. Some things to consider are as
follows:
Recovery must be addressed in multiple aspects and dimensions;
Include affected populations in efforts to define needs and recovery plans;
Recovery is an opportunity to build back better and enhance development;
Seeking resources, strengthening alliances and ensuring sustainability; and
Integrate disaster risk reduction in all investment decisions for recovery and
reconstruction.
Challenges in managing Disaster Resilient Cities
GSDRC (2014) outlines some of the challenges of managing disaster resilient cities in
terms of adaptive capacity, poverty and inequality, political economy, integration of disaster
resilience in aid operations and policies, disaster resilience analysis and measurement,
environmental support and government action, and financial conditions.
Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity relates to the capacity of systems, institutions, people and other
organisms to be able to adjust to potential damage, take benefit from opportunities or respond
to possible consequences (IPCC, 2014). Adaptive capacity includes prevention strategies,
which involve making choices to avoid events, and impact minimization strategies. Existing
research has highlighted that adaptive capacities are interrelated, and no single factor can
explain the level of disaster resilience in any context. For example, the role of indigenous
knowledge must be understood as closely linked to socio-economic variables that support or
undermine adaptation efforts.
Poverty and Inequality Conditions
The capacity of individuals, families or communities to prepare for, withstand and
respond to hazards or crises is enabled and constrained by social status, income and ethnicity
(Bosher et al., 2007). There is a common understanding that it is the poor who will suffer the
greatest losses from disasters (Oxfam, 2013; Shepherd et al., 2013). In 2008, the United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) noted that 94% of all people killed by
disasters between 1975-2000 were from low- or lower-middle-income groups (UNISDR,
2008). Disasters deprive people of assets and livelihoods, reproducing poverty and inequality
(UNISDR, 2008; Shepherd et al., 2013). Therefore, good disaster risk management can
reduce the impact of disasters, especially on the lower middle class (Shepherd et al., 2013).
Research in eight villages in coastal Andhra Pradesh in southern India concluded that
caste is a key factor determining access to resources essential to aid recovery from disasters
(Bosher et al., 2007). In this case, 'lower' castes lacked access to the assets, public facilities
and political networks necessary to aid their recovery. Gender is a tangible form of inequality
that shapes vulnerability to disasters (Ganapati, 2012, 2013; OCHA, 2012; Oxfam UK, 2012;
Turnbull et al., 2013). For women and girls, injustices in everyday life, not just during
disasters, tend to create greater risk, reduce life chances, and deepen material and non-
material losses (Bradshaw & Fordham, 2013). In addition, there is also great concern
expressed in the literature about the vulnerability of other high-risk populations: children, the
elderly, and people with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Such groups can be disadvantaged
and discriminated against, and can face a range of inequalities that magnify their vulnerability
risk (Peek et al., 2010). On the one hand, these disadvantaged groups are usually more
exposed and vulnerable to hazards. However, they can also contribute to building disaster
resilience (Oliver-Smith et al., 2012; Oxfam, 2013; Turnbull et al., 2013).
Political Economy
A number of aspects of a country's political economy can affect disaster resilience. One
of these is regulations relating to urban building codes and land use, poor regulations, or poor
enforcement of regulations, can create economic and social conditions that put vulnerable
groups at greater risk and that are difficult to remedy (GFDRR, 2010; Turnbull et al., 2013;
Wilkinson, 2012a). Another important issue, documented in several case studies, is how
corruption and patronage systems limit adaptive capacity and weaken disaster resilience. One
study in Bangladesh found that pre- and post-disaster interventions were co-opted and used to
increase the assets of political elites to the detriment of low-income groups (Mahmud &
Prowse, 2012). In many developing countries, public policy and political commitment to
disaster resilience is suboptimal. In a meta-review of evidence, Wilkinson (2012a) attributes
this to a lack of political interest and will, unfavorable economic and political incentives,
information gaps, and coordination problems.
Integration of Disaster Resilience in Aid Operation and Policy
In many cases, disaster resilience efforts are hampered by political economy, power and
inequality, including gender inequality (OCHA, 2012; Oxfam, 2013; UNISDR, 2011).
Therefore, Oxfam (2013) recommends a lens that focuses on politics and equality to aid
resilience, which focuses on several aspects including the following:
Social insurance and other programs that target disadvantaged groups who need greater
support and services to have equal opportunities;
Build pro-poor institutions at all levels, which represent and respond to the needs and
capacities of the most vulnerable;
Ensure rights and accountability, and the ability of women and men to assert their rights
and hold power holders accountable through participation in decision-making at all levels;
and
Provide free essential basic services for health and education, and social protection
Disaster Resilience Analysis and Measurement
Several organizations have developed guidelines for measuring disaster resilience. One
widely used guideline is the resilience risk framework, which uses the five dimensions of
resilience identified in the Hyogo Framework for Action (Twigg, 2009). These five
dimensions include governance, risk assessment, knowledge and education, risk management
and vulnerability reduction, and disaster preparedness and response. Other organizations'
frameworks measure different dimensions of resilience. Oxfam, for example, recently
developed a multi-dimensional framework that incorporates livelihoods, innovation capacity,
access to emergency resources, integrity of the natural environment, and social and
institutional capacity (Hughes et al., 2013).
Environmental Support and Government Action
In this context there are three things that need attention, namely: multi-level and multi-
stakeholder working in an enabling environment, supportive actions from the national
government, and supportive actions from local governments.
Multi-level and multi-stakeholder working in an enabling environment
Group interventions and participation in disaster risk reduction at different scales and levels
of action are critical. The policy and institutional environment that supports long-term
disaster resilience should also involve governments supporting the capacity of individuals,
civil society, the private sector and at-risk populations to manage and adapt to risk. Based on
desk and field research in disaster-prone areas in three countries, Reaching Resilience (n.d.)
found that a multi-stakeholder, multi-level approach is effective when integrating disaster risk
reduction, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction in its intervention efforts, as
follows:
Understand and create dialog about people at risk mapping;
Explore appropriate institutional and governance contexts;
Analyzing strengths and relationships between stakeholders;
Supportive actions from local government
Turnbull et al. (2013) provide detailed guidance on risk governance at the local level. To
strengthen risk prevention, efforts are needed to improve local stakeholders' access to public
information, hazard mapping, use of forecasting and early warning systems. Strategies for
dealing with high-impact disasters include the development of disaster management
committees, emergency services, emergency plans and emergency funds, as well as social
insurance mechanisms. Strategies to protect assets and services include developing disaster-
resistant building techniques for houses, schools and hospitals, and investing in water and
sanitation technologies for disaster risk reduction.
Financial Condition
Efforts to improve disaster resilience are typically characterized by shortcomings in
terms of funding, cost and effectiveness of interventions for resilience that are still limited,
yet the need is growing (DFID, 2011; GFDRR, 2010). Multi-year funding for disaster
resilience is often recommended, especially for protracted crises (Frankenberger et al., 2012).
Despite these challenges, several studies have shown that building disaster resilience is more
cost-effective than a late response (Cabot Venton et al., 2013; GFDRR, 2010). The cost-
effectiveness of prevention can essentially be improved through efforts, not least on open
access to information about hazards or risk exposure, provision of disaster infrastructure and
services, other disaster investments, and stakeholder engagement in disaster risk
management.
Conclusion
Ensuring a city has disaster-resilient urban governance is not an easy task. There are
many factors that need to be considered and are interrelated with each other. Disaster resilient
city governance is strongly influenced by infrastructure resilience, institutional resilience,
economic resilience and social resilience. These four things must be managed properly and
continuously in order to create a disaster resilient city. From the ten key success factors of
disaster resilient governance that have been presented in the discussion session, it can be
concluded that awareness of the importance of disaster mitigation is the initial guide to the
success of disaster resilient city governance. Besides the urgency of the existence of
leadership, communication, coordination, participation and information disclosure are also
considered as the backbone for the sustainability of disaster resilient governance.
Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure resilience refers to reducing the vulnerability of structures such as
buildings and transportation systems. Infrastructure resilience also refers to protective
capacities such as maintenance facilities health, vulnerability of buildings to hazards, critical
infrastructure, availability of roads for evacuation, post-disaster supply lines and community
capacity for response and recovery. One country that is trying to strengthen infrastructure
resilience in disaster management is the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands is one of the
areas that is often visited by Atlantic hurricanes. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan, the worst storm in
86 years, hit the largest island, Grand Cayman and damaged 90% of the buildings (Young,
2004). Electricity, water and communications were disrupted for months in some areas of the
Cayman Islands. The island then began the process of rebuilding on a large scale, and within
a national strategic framework for disaster risk reduction. Among other efforts, a 124-bed
hospital was built to Category 5 hurricane standards. This health facility remained functional
during and after Hurricane Ivan, alongside efforts to provide shelter for more than 1,000
people (CY Gov, 2005).
Institutional Resilience
Institutional resilience refers to the systems, governmental and non-governmental that
manage a community. Institutions, whether built to address disaster risk or not, can influence
the vulnerability of different community groups through several pathways and conditions
(Lebel et al., 2006). In the conceptualization of disaster risk, the influence of institutionalized
capacities and practices on disaster risk management is also influenced by ecological and
social resilience and the attributes of the disaster event itself.
In disaster risk management, the institutional and political development context is geared
towards answering five questions: when do disasters occur; who and what is at risk; who is
responsible; how does disaster risk change; and how to evaluate (IFA, 2006). Examples of
institutional resilience efforts have been made by Thailand and El Savador. Thailand through
the Baan Mankong program attempted to improve the condition of informal settlements by
launching an initiative to upgrade and improve the condition of slums and squatter
settlements. Thailand's slum upgrading and improvement program adopts a community-based
approach to solving the problems of unsafe housing and poor living conditions, and puts
residents at the heart of the process (Archer, 2012). The Baan Mankong program channels
funds in the form of infrastructure subsidies and housing loans directly to low-income
communities in informal settlements. The funding comes almost entirely from domestic
resources - a combination of national government, local government and community
contributions. Under this national program, people in illegal settlements can obtain legal land
tenure through various means such as direct purchase from the landowner or moving to
another location provided by the government.
Another example of efforts to improve institutional resilience is that of Santa Tecla.
Santa Tecla is part of the metropolitan area of El Salvador's capital, San Salvador. Santa
Tecla experienced two earthquakes in 2001. In just five seconds, landslides caused more than
700 deaths, displaced 20% of the city's land, and severely damaged 38% of the infrastructure.
The government of Santa Tecla thought deeply about what could be done to transform the
city and make it disaster-proof. The Santa Tecla government then realized the need to start
designing urban land management in a more responsible and sustainable manner. In this
regard, the government recognized the need for citizens to understand the importance of what
the government was doing or the small changes that would occur by encouraging
participation in the 'Mesas de Ciudadanos' (citizens' groups) program, which brings together
different stakeholder organizations in periodic discussions and decision-making.
Economic Resilience
Economic resilience refers to the economic diversity of communities such as the type of
employment, number of businesses, and their ability to function normally after a disaster.
Economic resilience in the concept of disaster resilience contains four definitions, namely:
(a) Robustness, the ability to avoid direct and indirect economic losses; (b) Redundancy, the
level of untapped or excess economic capacity; (c) Resourcefulness - stabilization measures;
and (d) Rapidity - the speed of return to pre-disaster conditions (Bruneau et al., 2003).
Australia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and China have all made efforts to improve
economic resilience after disasters. The city of Cairns, Australia sets up a regular budget
intended for disaster preparedness and response. The city has an annual operating budget that
includes funding for disaster management units, coordination centers, volunteer services and
community awareness programs. In recent years, its annual budget includes allocations for
the construction of buildings, emergency response vehicles and equipment, disaster risk
assessment software, flood warning network upgrades and drainage and flood mitigation
investments. These are the city's commitment to disaster risk reduction. These efforts are
complemented by investments and partnerships at the national level and also involve
professionals in the built environment, the private sector and academic institutions. Similar to
Australia, three other countries - the Philippines, China and Sri Lanka - also have policies to
support investment in disaster risk reduction. Since 2001, cities in the Philippines have been
required to allocate 5% of their local government budgets to disaster funds. Under the
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010; cities in the Philippines can spend
70% of this allocation on preparedness and relief/reserve equipment. Sri Lanka, through the
Ministry of Disaster Management announced that in 2011 the government allocated Rs. 8
billion for flood control programs in the capital, Colombo, while launching a safe urban
planning program to minimize disasters as part of the Resilient Cities Campaign. The funds
were used to clean canals, reconstruct drainage systems, and for other measures to prevent
flooding in Colombo. In China, provincial governors of two disaster-prone Chinese provinces
(Sichuan and Yunnan) committed additional resources to disaster reduction. The Sichuan
Provincial Government invested 2 billion Yuan to improve the local geological disaster
prevention system. The Yunnan Provincial Government, meanwhile, committed to invest at
least 10 billion yuan over ten years in local disaster prevention and assessment systems.
Social Resilience
Social resilience refers to the demographic profile of a community by gender, age,
ethnicity, socioeconomic status and other groupings as well as its social capital profile.
Although difficult to measure, social capital refers to the sense (values, norms and culture) of
community, the ability of groups of citizens to adapt and the sense of attachment to a place.
Strengthening social resilience in disaster management has been applied by Japan, Nepal and
China.
Japan has a "watch and learn" pattern where children and communities learn what they
call Mountain and City Risk as early as possible. Starting at the kindergarten level, Japanese
schools implement education on how to detect and react in disaster situations, conduct regular
disaster response drills and use "disaster watch". This time-consuming investment saved
many lives in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. One of the cities that implemented
this program is Saijo City. Saijo City is one of the cities with an old population in Japan. This
old population is a major problem in disaster response in Saijo City. To be more disaster
resilient, Saijo City needs the energy of young people who are not many. Therefore, Saijo
City implemented a disaster risk awareness program targeting school children. For 12 years,
the Saijo City government has focused on projects to improve the quality of the city's
physical environment, and "mountain and city observation" projects for children. Young
residents meet with the elderly to learn together about the risks faced by Saijo City and to
draw lessons from the 2004 typhoon disaster. Saijo City has developed a 'mountain and city
watching' handbook and established a teachers' association for disaster education and a
children's club for disaster prevention. On top of all this, a national disaster safety day was
implemented. Japan celebrates Disaster Prevention Day every year on September 1, the
anniversary of the great Kanto earthquake of 1923, and March 11, the anniversary of the
Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami.
Apart from Japan, Nepal and China are countries that also observe disaster days. In
Nepal, January 15 marks the anniversary of the great Nepal earthquake of 1934. In
Kathmandu, political leaders and prominent figures commemorated the event with activities
such as street parades, shaking table demonstrations, exhibitions on disaster-resistant
construction, street plays, interactive seminars, poster, art and other competitions, and
presentations for children. An earthquake simulation exercise was the highlight of the
commemorative event, with wide public participation and coverage by local media. China has
designated May 12 as National Disaster Safety Day, to commemorate the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake.
Disaster risk reduction and disaster resilience are integral parts of environmental,
economic, social and political sustainable development (ICLEI, 2010). To improve
governance towards resilience, there are five things that need to be considered, which include
(a) Understanding for whom the government regulates or manages;
(b) Use of a territorial approach in governance;
(c) Use of appropriate tools or methods for efficient land management; (d) Use of ICT and e-
governance; and (5) Implementation of innovative governance.
Keys to Successful Disaster Resilient City Governance
Cities that have been able to strengthen their resilience to disasters have provided some
of the following learning about how to manage cities to become disaster resilient. There are at
least ten key factors that determine whether a city becomes disaster resilient, as follows:
Having a Disaster Resilience Organization
Organizations that support the resilience of cities to disasters are needed to contribute to
the goal of sustainable urban development, a holistic approach in understanding potential
threats, and disaster risk governance that should be adopted. In this context, it is important to
involve decision-makers such as local governments, various officials and departments,
academia, business groups, and communities. Participation of these key groups and actors in
planning, implementation and monitoring, and effective organizational structures are
prerequisites for sound decision-making and practice of disaster risk reduction actions. This
will foster collaboration and partnership among all stakeholders for disaster risk prevention,
mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation. Recognizing that the
appropriate organizational structure will vary within and between countries, there are at least
three things that need to be considered, namely as follows:
Build and strengthen institutional capacity and coordination at the local level;
Building alliances and/or networks with all relevant stakeholder groups; and
Establish legislative frameworks and action mechanisms to achieve resilience.
Identify, Understand, and Utilize Current and Future Risk Scenarios
It is based on the premise that disaster risk management needs to be based on an
understanding of disaster risk scenarios across all dimensions of hazard characteristics, risk
exposure, capacity and vulnerability. Analysis and measurement of risk scenarios are
essential for informed decision-making, prioritizing programs or projects, and planning for
disaster risk reduction measures (prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response). The
need for both can be eliminated if local governments have a clear understanding of the risks
they face and fully discuss with the public and other stakeholders about risk scenarios and the
implementation of meaningful disaster risk reduction measures. There are two things that can
be done at this point, which are as follows:
Identify the most likely and most severe scenarios (worst case); and
Utilize information and measurement results from risk scenarios to make development
decisions by involving stakeholders.
Strengthening Financial Capacity for Disaster Resilience
Strengthening financial capacity can be done by including specific resources and specific
mechanisms that can be used to increase resilience. Financial resources can come from
municipal revenues, local or sectoral national distributions and allocations, public-private
partnerships and technical cooperation, as well as civil society and external organizations.
Financial mechanisms can include resilience financing and resilience self-help embedded in
broader development planning and spending. There are at least three ways in which efforts
can be made to increase awareness and financial capacity to build disaster resilient cities, as
follows:
Recognize the opportunity that building resilience to disasters equates to contributing to a
sound economic strategy;
Ensure a budget for resilience; and
Disseminate risk information for development decisions.
Development of Disaster Resilient City Design
Not all hazards or potential disasters can cause a disaster. A disaster occurs when a
potential disaster results in devastation that a community is unable to cope with on its own
without assistance from others. Therefore, preventive measures can help build better
resilience capacity, avoid and/or minimize disruption and destruction of networks and
infrastructure, which can lead to severe social and economic consequences. In addition,
integrating resilience concepts into infrastructure and socio-economic planning and
development will protect the city's development investments. In the context of developing
disaster-resilient urban design, there are several things that need to be considered and done,
namely as follows:
Place urban planning and land use management at the core of urban resilience through
land zoning and disaster-aware planning;
Mapping systemic and specific vulnerabilities; and
Mainstream resilience into ongoing updates of city master plans and sectoral strategies.
Protecting Natural Buffers to Improve Ecosystem Functions
Ecosystems provide essential services for disaster risk reduction as protection and
barriers against disaster threats and hazards. Ecosystems are central to disaster mitigation by
offering, for example, regulation against flooding and protecting steep slopes from potential
landslides. Ecosystems also increase the resilience of communities to withstand, cope with
and recover from disasters by providing multiple benefits such as food, firewood, clean water
and the like. Degraded ecosystems will not be able to provide such mitigation benefits and
resources, which in turn significantly increases community vulnerability. The process of
urban expansion changes the ecosystem fabric and often generates new risks and new
vulnerabilities. Recognizing the economic value and multiple benefits of healthy ecosystems
that act as natural buffers is important to reduce risks and contribute to the resilience and
sustainability of cities. Relevant ecosystem services may include, but are not limited to: water
retention or water infiltration; afforestation; urban vegetation; floodplains; mangroves, and
other coastal vegetation. Some things that need to be considered in efforts to increase
resilience through ecosystems are as follows:
Raising awareness of the impact of change environmental and ecosystem degradation on
disaster risk by recognizing the value and benefits of ecosystem services for disaster risk
prevention, protecting and or enhancing them as part of disaster risk reduction strategies
for the city;
Promote management of critical ecosystems to strengthen resilience to disasters;
Strengthen existing ecosystem management based on risk scenario assessments; and
Anticipate changes from climate trends, urbanization and make plans that allow
ecosystem services to remain.
Strengthening Institutional Capacity
Understanding the city's institutional background on past efforts towards risk reduction
or management and resilience building can help detect current gaps in local capacity to
coordinate and take action towards disaster prevention, mitigation, response and recovery.
Another advantage is to be able to identify the best and most appropriate approach effective to
strengthen relevant institutions in managing disaster risk. The institutions in question are the
central government and local governments. Other groups also have a role in disaster risk
management by complementing and supporting government measures. These groups include
the private sector that provides public services according to local needs, such as telephone,
water, energy, and health, as well as volunteer capacity or equipment in the event of a
disaster; owners and operators of industrial facilities; building owners (individuals or
companies); NGOs; professionals and academics, employers and labor organizations; and
cultural institutions and civil society organizations. Some things to note, are as follows:
Identifying the specific nature of each disaster risk and mapping the characteristics and
support needs of each institution. This requires reaching a common understanding of the
roles and responsibilities of each;
Building local capacity and strengthening participation in disaster management and
resilience building; and
Ensure consistency of disaster risk data and information among stakeholders. This can be
done by creating and implementing an information and data framework for resilience and
disaster risk reduction efforts.
Identifying, Understanding and Strengthening Social Capacity
Communities should take part in collective efforts to create disaster-resilient cities
through education, training and disaster awareness programs. All components of the
community must understand the hazards and risks they face, so that they can prepare and take
steps to cope with potential disasters. Education and capacity building programs are also key
to mobilizing citizen and community participation in disaster management strategies, such as
improving community preparedness and response to local early warnings. Some things that
need to be considered in improving community capacity to ensure disaster resilience are as
follows:
Establish a comprehensive response unit at the local level;
Develop risk reduction and resilience information;
Integrate disaster risk reduction and resilience into formal education and other training
programs;
Improving public education and awareness through information dissemination through the
business sector and media; and
Establish and maintain open access to data for disaster preparedness and response.
Improving Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure is an important part of urban governance and especially in relation to
emergency response conditions. Therefore, the government needs to pay special attention to
safety needs in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure so that it can continue to be
operational during emergencies. The main infrastructure required for city operations such as
transportation (roads, railways, airports and other ports), vehicle fuel supply lines,
telecommunications systems, utility systems, hospitals and health facilities, educational
institutions and school facilities, food supply chains, police and fire services, and so on. Some
things to note are as follows:
Measurement of critical infrastructure capacity and adequacy;
Strengthening vulnerable infrastructure (infrastructure replacement and procurement);
Build alliances with the private sector to leverage technical and financial resources and
ensure that private investments follow environmental and risk reduction norms; and
Recognize the need for service relevance and operational priorities during and after a
disaster.
Ensuring the Effectiveness of Disaster Response
Well-developed preparedness and response plans can not only save lives and property,
but also contribute to resilience and post-disaster recovery by reducing disaster impacts.
Preparedness efforts, early warning systems and communication systems will help ensure that
cities, communities and individuals threatened by hazards can act in sufficient time and
appropriately to reduce injuries, loss of life and damage to property or the environment.
Sustainability can be achieved if the community itself and local authorities understand the
importance and need for emergency preparedness and response at the local level. Some things
to consider are as follows:
Create and improve preparedness plans, including training;
Strengthening early warning systems; and
Improve the city's emergency response services.
Accelerate City Recovery and Build Back Better
Cities are built by multiple entities over decades or centuries, and are therefore very
difficult to rebuild in a short period of time. Until recently, there was a priority debate
between the need to rebuild quickly and rebuild safely and sustainably. A planned and
participatory recovery and reconstruction process will help the city to be able to reactivate
city life as soon as possible, restoring and rebuilding damaged infrastructure and restoring the
city's economy, empowering its citizens to rebuild their lives, homes and livelihoods.
Reconstruction should start as soon as possible, even before a potential disaster becomes a
disaster. Essentially, cities can foresee needs, establish operational mechanisms and assign
resources required as preparation and mitigation efforts, if supported by capable systems.
Recovery and rehabilitation can be planned long before a disaster occurs. Leadership,
coordination and funding are important parts of the effort. Some things to consider are as
follows:
Recovery must be addressed in multiple aspects and dimensions;
Include affected populations in efforts to define needs and recovery plans;
Recovery is an opportunity to build back better and enhance development;
Seeking resources, strengthening alliances and ensuring sustainability; and
Integrate disaster risk reduction in all investment decisions for recovery and
reconstruction.
Challenges in managing Disaster Resilient Cities
GSDRC (2014) outlines some of the challenges of managing disaster resilient cities in
terms of adaptive capacity, poverty and inequality, political economy, integration of disaster
resilience in aid operations and policies, disaster resilience analysis and measurement,
environmental support and government action, and financial conditions.
Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity relates to the capacity of systems, institutions, people and other
organisms to be able to adjust to potential damage, take benefit from opportunities or respond
to possible consequences (IPCC, 2014). Adaptive capacity includes prevention strategies,
which involve making choices to avoid events, and impact minimization strategies. Existing
research has highlighted that adaptive capacities are interrelated, and no single factor can
explain the level of disaster resilience in any context. For example, the role of indigenous
knowledge must be understood as closely linked to socio-economic variables that support or
undermine adaptation efforts.
Poverty and Inequality Conditions
The capacity of individuals, families or communities to prepare for, withstand and
respond to hazards or crises is enabled and constrained by social status, income and ethnicity
(Bosher et al., 2007). There is a common understanding that it is the poor who will suffer the
greatest losses from disasters (Oxfam, 2013; Shepherd et al., 2013). In 2008, the United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) noted that 94% of all people killed by
disasters between 1975-2000 were from low- or lower-middle-income groups (UNISDR,
2008). Disasters deprive people of assets and livelihoods, reproducing poverty and inequality
(UNISDR, 2008; Shepherd et al., 2013). Therefore, good disaster risk management can
reduce the impact of disasters, especially on the lower middle class (Shepherd et al., 2013).
Research in eight villages in coastal Andhra Pradesh in southern India concluded that
caste is a key factor determining access to resources essential to aid recovery from disasters
(Bosher et al., 2007). In this case, 'lower' castes lacked access to the assets, public facilities
and political networks necessary to aid their recovery. Gender is a tangible form of inequality
that shapes vulnerability to disasters (Ganapati, 2012, 2013; OCHA, 2012; Oxfam UK, 2012;
Turnbull et al., 2013). For women and girls, injustices in everyday life, not just during
disasters, tend to create greater risk, reduce life chances, and deepen material and non-
material losses (Bradshaw & Fordham, 2013). In addition, there is also great concern
expressed in the literature about the vulnerability of other high-risk populations: children, the
elderly, and people with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Such groups can be disadvantaged
and discriminated against, and can face a range of inequalities that magnify their vulnerability
risk (Peek et al., 2010). On the one hand, these disadvantaged groups are usually more
exposed and vulnerable to hazards. However, they can also contribute to building disaster
resilience (Oliver-Smith et al., 2012; Oxfam, 2013; Turnbull et al., 2013).
Political Economy
A number of aspects of a country's political economy can affect disaster resilience. One
of these is regulations relating to urban building codes and land use, poor regulations, or poor
enforcement of regulations, can create economic and social conditions that put vulnerable
groups at greater risk and that are difficult to remedy (GFDRR, 2010; Turnbull et al., 2013;
Wilkinson, 2012a). Another important issue, documented in several case studies, is how
corruption and patronage systems limit adaptive capacity and weaken disaster resilience. One
study in Bangladesh found that pre- and post-disaster interventions were co-opted and used to
increase the assets of political elites to the detriment of low-income groups (Mahmud &
Prowse, 2012). In many developing countries, public policy and political commitment to
disaster resilience is suboptimal. In a meta-review of evidence, Wilkinson (2012a) attributes
this to a lack of political interest and will, unfavorable economic and political incentives,
information gaps, and coordination problems.
Integration of Disaster Resilience in Aid Operation and Policy
In many cases, disaster resilience efforts are hampered by political economy, power and
inequality, including gender inequality (OCHA, 2012; Oxfam, 2013; UNISDR, 2011).
Therefore, Oxfam (2013) recommends a lens that focuses on politics and equality to aid
resilience, which focuses on several aspects including the following:
Social insurance and other programs that target disadvantaged groups who need greater
support and services to have equal opportunities;
Build pro-poor institutions at all levels, which represent and respond to the needs and
capacities of the most vulnerable;
Ensure rights and accountability, and the ability of women and men to assert their rights
and hold power holders accountable through participation in decision-making at all levels;
and
Provide free essential basic services for health and education, and social protection
Disaster Resilience Analysis and Measurement
Several organizations have developed guidelines for measuring disaster resilience. One
widely used guideline is the resilience risk framework, which uses the five dimensions of
resilience identified in the Hyogo Framework for Action (Twigg, 2009). These five
dimensions include governance, risk assessment, knowledge and education, risk management
and vulnerability reduction, and disaster preparedness and response. Other organizations'
frameworks measure different dimensions of resilience. Oxfam, for example, recently
developed a multi-dimensional framework that incorporates livelihoods, innovation capacity,
access to emergency resources, integrity of the natural environment, and social and
institutional capacity (Hughes et al., 2013).
Environmental Support and Government Action
In this context there are three things that need attention, namely: multi-level and multi-
stakeholder working in an enabling environment, supportive actions from the national
government, and supportive actions from local governments.
Multi-level and multi-stakeholder working in an enabling environment
Group interventions and participation in disaster risk reduction at different scales and levels
of action are critical. The policy and institutional environment that supports long-term
disaster resilience should also involve governments supporting the capacity of individuals,
civil society, the private sector and at-risk populations to manage and adapt to risk. Based on
desk and field research in disaster-prone areas in three countries, Reaching Resilience (n.d.)
found that a multi-stakeholder, multi-level approach is effective when integrating disaster risk
reduction, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction in its intervention efforts, as
follows:
Understand and create dialog about people at risk mapping;
Explore appropriate institutional and governance contexts;
Analyzing strengths and relationships between stakeholders;
Supportive actions from local government
Turnbull et al. (2013) provide detailed guidance on risk governance at the local level. To
strengthen risk prevention, efforts are needed to improve local stakeholders' access to public
information, hazard mapping, use of forecasting and early warning systems. Strategies for
dealing with high-impact disasters include the development of disaster management
committees, emergency services, emergency plans and emergency funds, as well as social
insurance mechanisms. Strategies to protect assets and services include developing disaster-
resistant building techniques for houses, schools and hospitals, and investing in water and
sanitation technologies for disaster risk reduction.
Financial Condition
Efforts to improve disaster resilience are typically characterized by shortcomings in
terms of funding, cost and effectiveness of interventions for resilience that are still limited,
yet the need is growing (DFID, 2011; GFDRR, 2010). Multi-year funding for disaster
resilience is often recommended, especially for protracted crises (Frankenberger et al., 2012).
Despite these challenges, several studies have shown that building disaster resilience is more
cost-effective than a late response (Cabot Venton et al., 2013; GFDRR, 2010). The cost-
effectiveness of prevention can essentially be improved through efforts, not least on open
access to information about hazards or risk exposure, provision of disaster infrastructure and
services, other disaster investments, and stakeholder engagement in disaster risk
management.
Conclusion
Ensuring a city has disaster-resilient urban governance is not an easy task. There are
many factors that need to be considered and are interrelated with each other. Disaster resilient
city governance is strongly influenced by infrastructure resilience, institutional resilience,
economic resilience and social resilience. These four things must be managed properly and
continuously in order to create a disaster resilient city. From the ten key success factors of
disaster resilient governance that have been presented in the discussion session, it can be
concluded that awareness of the importance of disaster mitigation is the initial guide to the
success of disaster resilient city governance. Besides the urgency of the existence of
leadership, communication, coordination, participation and information disclosure are also
considered as the backbone for the sustainability of disaster resilient governance.
Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure resilience refers to reducing the vulnerability of structures such as
buildings and transportation systems. Infrastructure resilience also refers to protective
capacities such as maintenance facilities health, vulnerability of buildings to hazards, critical
infrastructure, availability of roads for evacuation, post-disaster supply lines and community
capacity for response and recovery. One country that is trying to strengthen infrastructure
resilience in disaster management is the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands is one of the
areas that is often visited by Atlantic hurricanes. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan, the worst storm in
86 years, hit the largest island, Grand Cayman and damaged 90% of the buildings (Young,
2004). Electricity, water and communications were disrupted for months in some areas of the
Cayman Islands. The island then began the process of rebuilding on a large scale, and within
a national strategic framework for disaster risk reduction. Among other efforts, a 124-bed
hospital was built to Category 5 hurricane standards. This health facility remained functional
during and after Hurricane Ivan, alongside efforts to provide shelter for more than 1,000
people (CY Gov, 2005).
Institutional Resilience
Institutional resilience refers to the systems, governmental and non-governmental that
manage a community. Institutions, whether built to address disaster risk or not, can influence
the vulnerability of different community groups through several pathways and conditions
(Lebel et al., 2006). In the conceptualization of disaster risk, the influence of institutionalized
capacities and practices on disaster risk management is also influenced by ecological and
social resilience and the attributes of the disaster event itself.
In disaster risk management, the institutional and political development context is geared
towards answering five questions: when do disasters occur; who and what is at risk; who is
responsible; how does disaster risk change; and how to evaluate (IFA, 2006). Examples of
institutional resilience efforts have been made by Thailand and El Savador. Thailand through
the Baan Mankong program attempted to improve the condition of informal settlements by
launching an initiative to upgrade and improve the condition of slums and squatter
settlements. Thailand's slum upgrading and improvement program adopts a community-based
approach to solving the problems of unsafe housing and poor living conditions, and puts
residents at the heart of the process (Archer, 2012). The Baan Mankong program channels
funds in the form of infrastructure subsidies and housing loans directly to low-income
communities in informal settlements. The funding comes almost entirely from domestic
resources - a combination of national government, local government and community
contributions. Under this national program, people in illegal settlements can obtain legal land
tenure through various means such as direct purchase from the landowner or moving to
another location provided by the government.
Another example of efforts to improve institutional resilience is that of Santa Tecla.
Santa Tecla is part of the metropolitan area of El Salvador's capital, San Salvador. Santa
Tecla experienced two earthquakes in 2001. In just five seconds, landslides caused more than
700 deaths, displaced 20% of the city's land, and severely damaged 38% of the infrastructure.
The government of Santa Tecla thought deeply about what could be done to transform the
city and make it disaster-proof. The Santa Tecla government then realized the need to start
designing urban land management in a more responsible and sustainable manner. In this
regard, the government recognized the need for citizens to understand the importance of what
the government was doing or the small changes that would occur by encouraging
participation in the 'Mesas de Ciudadanos' (citizens' groups) program, which brings together
different stakeholder organizations in periodic discussions and decision-making.
Economic Resilience
Economic resilience refers to the economic diversity of communities such as the type of
employment, number of businesses, and their ability to function normally after a disaster.
Economic resilience in the concept of disaster resilience contains four definitions, namely:
(a) Robustness, the ability to avoid direct and indirect economic losses; (b) Redundancy, the
level of untapped or excess economic capacity; (c) Resourcefulness - stabilization measures;
and (d) Rapidity - the speed of return to pre-disaster conditions (Bruneau et al., 2003).
Australia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and China have all made efforts to improve
economic resilience after disasters. The city of Cairns, Australia sets up a regular budget
intended for disaster preparedness and response. The city has an annual operating budget that
includes funding for disaster management units, coordination centers, volunteer services and
community awareness programs. In recent years, its annual budget includes allocations for
the construction of buildings, emergency response vehicles and equipment, disaster risk
assessment software, flood warning network upgrades and drainage and flood mitigation
investments. These are the city's commitment to disaster risk reduction. These efforts are
complemented by investments and partnerships at the national level and also involve
professionals in the built environment, the private sector and academic institutions. Similar to
Australia, three other countries - the Philippines, China and Sri Lanka - also have policies to
support investment in disaster risk reduction. Since 2001, cities in the Philippines have been
required to allocate 5% of their local government budgets to disaster funds. Under the
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010; cities in the Philippines can spend
70% of this allocation on preparedness and relief/reserve equipment. Sri Lanka, through the
Ministry of Disaster Management announced that in 2011 the government allocated Rs. 8
billion for flood control programs in the capital, Colombo, while launching a safe urban
planning program to minimize disasters as part of the Resilient Cities Campaign. The funds
were used to clean canals, reconstruct drainage systems, and for other measures to prevent
flooding in Colombo. In China, provincial governors of two disaster-prone Chinese provinces
(Sichuan and Yunnan) committed additional resources to disaster reduction. The Sichuan
Provincial Government invested 2 billion Yuan to improve the local geological disaster
prevention system. The Yunnan Provincial Government, meanwhile, committed to invest at
least 10 billion yuan over ten years in local disaster prevention and assessment systems.
Social Resilience
Social resilience refers to the demographic profile of a community by gender, age,
ethnicity, socioeconomic status and other groupings as well as its social capital profile.
Although difficult to measure, social capital refers to the sense (values, norms and culture) of
community, the ability of groups of citizens to adapt and the sense of attachment to a place.
Strengthening social resilience in disaster management has been applied by Japan, Nepal and
China.
Japan has a "watch and learn" pattern where children and communities learn what they
call Mountain and City Risk as early as possible. Starting at the kindergarten level, Japanese
schools implement education on how to detect and react in disaster situations, conduct regular
disaster response drills and use "disaster watch". This time-consuming investment saved
many lives in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. One of the cities that implemented
this program is Saijo City. Saijo City is one of the cities with an old population in Japan. This
old population is a major problem in disaster response in Saijo City. To be more disaster
resilient, Saijo City needs the energy of young people who are not many. Therefore, Saijo
City implemented a disaster risk awareness program targeting school children. For 12 years,
the Saijo City government has focused on projects to improve the quality of the city's
physical environment, and "mountain and city observation" projects for children. Young
residents meet with the elderly to learn together about the risks faced by Saijo City and to
draw lessons from the 2004 typhoon disaster. Saijo City has developed a 'mountain and city
watching' handbook and established a teachers' association for disaster education and a
children's club for disaster prevention. On top of all this, a national disaster safety day was
implemented. Japan celebrates Disaster Prevention Day every year on September 1, the
anniversary of the great Kanto earthquake of 1923, and March 11, the anniversary of the
Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami.
Apart from Japan, Nepal and China are countries that also observe disaster days. In
Nepal, January 15 marks the anniversary of the great Nepal earthquake of 1934. In
Kathmandu, political leaders and prominent figures commemorated the event with activities
such as street parades, shaking table demonstrations, exhibitions on disaster-resistant
construction, street plays, interactive seminars, poster, art and other competitions, and
presentations for children. An earthquake simulation exercise was the highlight of the
commemorative event, with wide public participation and coverage by local media. China has
designated May 12 as National Disaster Safety Day, to commemorate the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake.
Disaster risk reduction and disaster resilience are integral parts of environmental,
economic, social and political sustainable development (ICLEI, 2010). To improve
governance towards resilience, there are five things that need to be considered, which include
(a) Understanding for whom the government regulates or manages;
(b) Use of a territorial approach in governance;
(c) Use of appropriate tools or methods for efficient land management; (d) Use of ICT and e-
governance; and (5) Implementation of innovative governance.
Keys to Successful Disaster Resilient City Governance
Cities that have been able to strengthen their resilience to disasters have provided some
of the following learning about how to manage cities to become disaster resilient. There are at
least ten key factors that determine whether a city becomes disaster resilient, as follows:
Having a Disaster Resilience Organization
Organizations that support the resilience of cities to disasters are needed to contribute to
the goal of sustainable urban development, a holistic approach in understanding potential
threats, and disaster risk governance that should be adopted. In this context, it is important to
involve decision-makers such as local governments, various officials and departments,
academia, business groups, and communities. Participation of these key groups and actors in
planning, implementation and monitoring, and effective organizational structures are
prerequisites for sound decision-making and practice of disaster risk reduction actions. This
will foster collaboration and partnership among all stakeholders for disaster risk prevention,
mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation. Recognizing that the
appropriate organizational structure will vary within and between countries, there are at least
three things that need to be considered, namely as follows:
Build and strengthen institutional capacity and coordination at the local level;
Building alliances and/or networks with all relevant stakeholder groups; and
Establish legislative frameworks and action mechanisms to achieve resilience.
Identify, Understand, and Utilize Current and Future Risk Scenarios
It is based on the premise that disaster risk management needs to be based on an
understanding of disaster risk scenarios across all dimensions of hazard characteristics, risk
exposure, capacity and vulnerability. Analysis and measurement of risk scenarios are
essential for informed decision-making, prioritizing programs or projects, and planning for
disaster risk reduction measures (prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response). The
need for both can be eliminated if local governments have a clear understanding of the risks
they face and fully discuss with the public and other stakeholders about risk scenarios and the
implementation of meaningful disaster risk reduction measures. There are two things that can
be done at this point, which are as follows:
Identify the most likely and most severe scenarios (worst case); and
Utilize information and measurement results from risk scenarios to make development
decisions by involving stakeholders.
Strengthening Financial Capacity for Disaster Resilience
Strengthening financial capacity can be done by including specific resources and specific
mechanisms that can be used to increase resilience. Financial resources can come from
municipal revenues, local or sectoral national distributions and allocations, public-private
partnerships and technical cooperation, as well as civil society and external organizations.
Financial mechanisms can include resilience financing and resilience self-help embedded in
broader development planning and spending. There are at least three ways in which efforts
can be made to increase awareness and financial capacity to build disaster resilient cities, as
follows:
Recognize the opportunity that building resilience to disasters equates to contributing to a
sound economic strategy;
Ensure a budget for resilience; and
Disseminate risk information for development decisions.
Development of Disaster Resilient City Design
Not all hazards or potential disasters can cause a disaster. A disaster occurs when a
potential disaster results in devastation that a community is unable to cope with on its own
without assistance from others. Therefore, preventive measures can help build better
resilience capacity, avoid and/or minimize disruption and destruction of networks and
infrastructure, which can lead to severe social and economic consequences. In addition,
integrating resilience concepts into infrastructure and socio-economic planning and
development will protect the city's development investments. In the context of developing
disaster-resilient urban design, there are several things that need to be considered and done,
namely as follows:
Place urban planning and land use management at the core of urban resilience through
land zoning and disaster-aware planning;
Mapping systemic and specific vulnerabilities; and
Mainstream resilience into ongoing updates of city master plans and sectoral strategies.
Protecting Natural Buffers to Improve Ecosystem Functions
Ecosystems provide essential services for disaster risk reduction as protection and
barriers against disaster threats and hazards. Ecosystems are central to disaster mitigation by
offering, for example, regulation against flooding and protecting steep slopes from potential
landslides. Ecosystems also increase the resilience of communities to withstand, cope with
and recover from disasters by providing multiple benefits such as food, firewood, clean water
and the like. Degraded ecosystems will not be able to provide such mitigation benefits and
resources, which in turn significantly increases community vulnerability. The process of
urban expansion changes the ecosystem fabric and often generates new risks and new
vulnerabilities. Recognizing the economic value and multiple benefits of healthy ecosystems
that act as natural buffers is important to reduce risks and contribute to the resilience and
sustainability of cities. Relevant ecosystem services may include, but are not limited to: water
retention or water infiltration; afforestation; urban vegetation; floodplains; mangroves, and
other coastal vegetation. Some things that need to be considered in efforts to increase
resilience through ecosystems are as follows:
Raising awareness of the impact of change environmental and ecosystem degradation on
disaster risk by recognizing the value and benefits of ecosystem services for disaster risk
prevention, protecting and or enhancing them as part of disaster risk reduction strategies
for the city;
Promote management of critical ecosystems to strengthen resilience to disasters;
Strengthen existing ecosystem management based on risk scenario assessments; and
Anticipate changes from climate trends, urbanization and make plans that allow
ecosystem services to remain.
Strengthening Institutional Capacity
Understanding the city's institutional background on past efforts towards risk reduction
or management and resilience building can help detect current gaps in local capacity to
coordinate and take action towards disaster prevention, mitigation, response and recovery.
Another advantage is to be able to identify the best and most appropriate approach effective to
strengthen relevant institutions in managing disaster risk. The institutions in question are the
central government and local governments. Other groups also have a role in disaster risk
management by complementing and supporting government measures. These groups include
the private sector that provides public services according to local needs, such as telephone,
water, energy, and health, as well as volunteer capacity or equipment in the event of a
disaster; owners and operators of industrial facilities; building owners (individuals or
companies); NGOs; professionals and academics, employers and labor organizations; and
cultural institutions and civil society organizations. Some things to note, are as follows:
Identifying the specific nature of each disaster risk and mapping the characteristics and
support needs of each institution. This requires reaching a common understanding of the
roles and responsibilities of each;
Building local capacity and strengthening participation in disaster management and
resilience building; and
Ensure consistency of disaster risk data and information among stakeholders. This can be
done by creating and implementing an information and data framework for resilience and
disaster risk reduction efforts.
Identifying, Understanding and Strengthening Social Capacity
Communities should take part in collective efforts to create disaster-resilient cities
through education, training and disaster awareness programs. All components of the
community must understand the hazards and risks they face, so that they can prepare and take
steps to cope with potential disasters. Education and capacity building programs are also key
to mobilizing citizen and community participation in disaster management strategies, such as
improving community preparedness and response to local early warnings. Some things that
need to be considered in improving community capacity to ensure disaster resilience are as
follows:
Establish a comprehensive response unit at the local level;
Develop risk reduction and resilience information;
Integrate disaster risk reduction and resilience into formal education and other training
programs;
Improving public education and awareness through information dissemination through the
business sector and media; and
Establish and maintain open access to data for disaster preparedness and response.
Improving Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure is an important part of urban governance and especially in relation to
emergency response conditions. Therefore, the government needs to pay special attention to
safety needs in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure so that it can continue to be
operational during emergencies. The main infrastructure required for city operations such as
transportation (roads, railways, airports and other ports), vehicle fuel supply lines,
telecommunications systems, utility systems, hospitals and health facilities, educational
institutions and school facilities, food supply chains, police and fire services, and so on. Some
things to note are as follows:
Measurement of critical infrastructure capacity and adequacy;
Strengthening vulnerable infrastructure (infrastructure replacement and procurement);
Build alliances with the private sector to leverage technical and financial resources and
ensure that private investments follow environmental and risk reduction norms; and
Recognize the need for service relevance and operational priorities during and after a
disaster.
Ensuring the Effectiveness of Disaster Response
Well-developed preparedness and response plans can not only save lives and property,
but also contribute to resilience and post-disaster recovery by reducing disaster impacts.
Preparedness efforts, early warning systems and communication systems will help ensure that
cities, communities and individuals threatened by hazards can act in sufficient time and
appropriately to reduce injuries, loss of life and damage to property or the environment.
Sustainability can be achieved if the community itself and local authorities understand the
importance and need for emergency preparedness and response at the local level. Some things
to consider are as follows:
Create and improve preparedness plans, including training;
Strengthening early warning systems; and
Improve the city's emergency response services.
Accelerate City Recovery and Build Back Better
Cities are built by multiple entities over decades or centuries, and are therefore very
difficult to rebuild in a short period of time. Until recently, there was a priority debate
between the need to rebuild quickly and rebuild safely and sustainably. A planned and
participatory recovery and reconstruction process will help the city to be able to reactivate
city life as soon as possible, restoring and rebuilding damaged infrastructure and restoring the
city's economy, empowering its citizens to rebuild their lives, homes and livelihoods.
Reconstruction should start as soon as possible, even before a potential disaster becomes a
disaster. Essentially, cities can foresee needs, establish operational mechanisms and assign
resources required as preparation and mitigation efforts, if supported by capable systems.
Recovery and rehabilitation can be planned long before a disaster occurs. Leadership,
coordination and funding are important parts of the effort. Some things to consider are as
follows:
Recovery must be addressed in multiple aspects and dimensions;
Include affected populations in efforts to define needs and recovery plans;
Recovery is an opportunity to build back better and enhance development;
Seeking resources, strengthening alliances and ensuring sustainability; and
Integrate disaster risk reduction in all investment decisions for recovery and
reconstruction.
Challenges in managing Disaster Resilient Cities
GSDRC (2014) outlines some of the challenges of managing disaster resilient cities in
terms of adaptive capacity, poverty and inequality, political economy, integration of disaster
resilience in aid operations and policies, disaster resilience analysis and measurement,
environmental support and government action, and financial conditions.
Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity relates to the capacity of systems, institutions, people and other
organisms to be able to adjust to potential damage, take benefit from opportunities or respond
to possible consequences (IPCC, 2014). Adaptive capacity includes prevention strategies,
which involve making choices to avoid events, and impact minimization strategies. Existing
research has highlighted that adaptive capacities are interrelated, and no single factor can
explain the level of disaster resilience in any context. For example, the role of indigenous
knowledge must be understood as closely linked to socio-economic variables that support or
undermine adaptation efforts.
Poverty and Inequality Conditions
The capacity of individuals, families or communities to prepare for, withstand and
respond to hazards or crises is enabled and constrained by social status, income and ethnicity
(Bosher et al., 2007). There is a common understanding that it is the poor who will suffer the
greatest losses from disasters (Oxfam, 2013; Shepherd et al., 2013). In 2008, the United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) noted that 94% of all people killed by
disasters between 1975-2000 were from low- or lower-middle-income groups (UNISDR,
2008). Disasters deprive people of assets and livelihoods, reproducing poverty and inequality
(UNISDR, 2008; Shepherd et al., 2013). Therefore, good disaster risk management can
reduce the impact of disasters, especially on the lower middle class (Shepherd et al., 2013).
Research in eight villages in coastal Andhra Pradesh in southern India concluded that
caste is a key factor determining access to resources essential to aid recovery from disasters
(Bosher et al., 2007). In this case, 'lower' castes lacked access to the assets, public facilities
and political networks necessary to aid their recovery. Gender is a tangible form of inequality
that shapes vulnerability to disasters (Ganapati, 2012, 2013; OCHA, 2012; Oxfam UK, 2012;
Turnbull et al., 2013). For women and girls, injustices in everyday life, not just during
disasters, tend to create greater risk, reduce life chances, and deepen material and non-
material losses (Bradshaw & Fordham, 2013). In addition, there is also great concern
expressed in the literature about the vulnerability of other high-risk populations: children, the
elderly, and people with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Such groups can be disadvantaged
and discriminated against, and can face a range of inequalities that magnify their vulnerability
risk (Peek et al., 2010). On the one hand, these disadvantaged groups are usually more
exposed and vulnerable to hazards. However, they can also contribute to building disaster
resilience (Oliver-Smith et al., 2012; Oxfam, 2013; Turnbull et al., 2013).
Political Economy
A number of aspects of a country's political economy can affect disaster resilience. One
of these is regulations relating to urban building codes and land use, poor regulations, or poor
enforcement of regulations, can create economic and social conditions that put vulnerable
groups at greater risk and that are difficult to remedy (GFDRR, 2010; Turnbull et al., 2013;
Wilkinson, 2012a). Another important issue, documented in several case studies, is how
corruption and patronage systems limit adaptive capacity and weaken disaster resilience. One
study in Bangladesh found that pre- and post-disaster interventions were co-opted and used to
increase the assets of political elites to the detriment of low-income groups (Mahmud &
Prowse, 2012). In many developing countries, public policy and political commitment to
disaster resilience is suboptimal. In a meta-review of evidence, Wilkinson (2012a) attributes
this to a lack of political interest and will, unfavorable economic and political incentives,
information gaps, and coordination problems.
Integration of Disaster Resilience in Aid Operation and Policy
In many cases, disaster resilience efforts are hampered by political economy, power and
inequality, including gender inequality (OCHA, 2012; Oxfam, 2013; UNISDR, 2011).
Therefore, Oxfam (2013) recommends a lens that focuses on politics and equality to aid
resilience, which focuses on several aspects including the following:
Social insurance and other programs that target disadvantaged groups who need greater
support and services to have equal opportunities;
Build pro-poor institutions at all levels, which represent and respond to the needs and
capacities of the most vulnerable;
Ensure rights and accountability, and the ability of women and men to assert their rights
and hold power holders accountable through participation in decision-making at all levels;
and
Provide free essential basic services for health and education, and social protection
Disaster Resilience Analysis and Measurement
Several organizations have developed guidelines for measuring disaster resilience. One
widely used guideline is the resilience risk framework, which uses the five dimensions of
resilience identified in the Hyogo Framework for Action (Twigg, 2009). These five
dimensions include governance, risk assessment, knowledge and education, risk management
and vulnerability reduction, and disaster preparedness and response. Other organizations'
frameworks measure different dimensions of resilience. Oxfam, for example, recently
developed a multi-dimensional framework that incorporates livelihoods, innovation capacity,
access to emergency resources, integrity of the natural environment, and social and
institutional capacity (Hughes et al., 2013).
Environmental Support and Government Action
In this context there are three things that need attention, namely: multi-level and multi-
stakeholder working in an enabling environment, supportive actions from the national
government, and supportive actions from local governments.
Multi-level and multi-stakeholder working in an enabling environment
Group interventions and participation in disaster risk reduction at different scales and levels
of action are critical. The policy and institutional environment that supports long-term
disaster resilience should also involve governments supporting the capacity of individuals,
civil society, the private sector and at-risk populations to manage and adapt to risk. Based on
desk and field research in disaster-prone areas in three countries, Reaching Resilience (n.d.)
found that a multi-stakeholder, multi-level approach is effective when integrating disaster risk
reduction, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction in its intervention efforts, as
follows:
Understand and create dialog about people at risk mapping;
Explore appropriate institutional and governance contexts;
Analyzing strengths and relationships between stakeholders;
Supportive actions from local government
Turnbull et al. (2013) provide detailed guidance on risk governance at the local level. To
strengthen risk prevention, efforts are needed to improve local stakeholders' access to public
information, hazard mapping, use of forecasting and early warning systems. Strategies for
dealing with high-impact disasters include the development of disaster management
committees, emergency services, emergency plans and emergency funds, as well as social
insurance mechanisms. Strategies to protect assets and services include developing disaster-
resistant building techniques for houses, schools and hospitals, and investing in water and
sanitation technologies for disaster risk reduction.
Financial Condition
Efforts to improve disaster resilience are typically characterized by shortcomings in
terms of funding, cost and effectiveness of interventions for resilience that are still limited,
yet the need is growing (DFID, 2011; GFDRR, 2010). Multi-year funding for disaster
resilience is often recommended, especially for protracted crises (Frankenberger et al., 2012).
Despite these challenges, several studies have shown that building disaster resilience is more
cost-effective than a late response (Cabot Venton et al., 2013; GFDRR, 2010). The cost-
effectiveness of prevention can essentially be improved through efforts, not least on open
access to information about hazards or risk exposure, provision of disaster infrastructure and
services, other disaster investments, and stakeholder engagement in disaster risk
management.
Conclusion
Ensuring a city has disaster-resilient urban governance is not an easy task. There are
many factors that need to be considered and are interrelated with each other. Disaster resilient
city governance is strongly influenced by infrastructure resilience, institutional resilience,
economic resilience and social resilience. These four things must be managed properly and
continuously in order to create a disaster resilient city. From the ten key success factors of
disaster resilient governance that have been presented in the discussion session, it can be
concluded that awareness of the importance of disaster mitigation is the initial guide to the
success of disaster resilient city governance. Besides the urgency of the existence of
leadership, communication, coordination, participation and information disclosure are also
considered as the backbone for the sustainability of disaster resilient governance.
Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure resilience refers to reducing the vulnerability of structures such as
buildings and transportation systems. Infrastructure resilience also refers to protective
capacities such as maintenance facilities health, vulnerability of buildings to hazards, critical
infrastructure, availability of roads for evacuation, post-disaster supply lines and community
capacity for response and recovery. One country that is trying to strengthen infrastructure
resilience in disaster management is the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands is one of the
areas that is often visited by Atlantic hurricanes. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan, the worst storm in
86 years, hit the largest island, Grand Cayman and damaged 90% of the buildings (Young,
2004). Electricity, water and communications were disrupted for months in some areas of the
Cayman Islands. The island then began the process of rebuilding on a large scale, and within
a national strategic framework for disaster risk reduction. Among other efforts, a 124-bed
hospital was built to Category 5 hurricane standards. This health facility remained functional
during and after Hurricane Ivan, alongside efforts to provide shelter for more than 1,000
people (CY Gov, 2005).
Institutional Resilience
Institutional resilience refers to the systems, governmental and non-governmental that
manage a community. Institutions, whether built to address disaster risk or not, can influence
the vulnerability of different community groups through several pathways and conditions
(Lebel et al., 2006). In the conceptualization of disaster risk, the influence of institutionalized
capacities and practices on disaster risk management is also influenced by ecological and
social resilience and the attributes of the disaster event itself.
In disaster risk management, the institutional and political development context is geared
towards answering five questions: when do disasters occur; who and what is at risk; who is
responsible; how does disaster risk change; and how to evaluate (IFA, 2006). Examples of
institutional resilience efforts have been made by Thailand and El Savador. Thailand through
the Baan Mankong program attempted to improve the condition of informal settlements by
launching an initiative to upgrade and improve the condition of slums and squatter
settlements. Thailand's slum upgrading and improvement program adopts a community-based
approach to solving the problems of unsafe housing and poor living conditions, and puts
residents at the heart of the process (Archer, 2012). The Baan Mankong program channels
funds in the form of infrastructure subsidies and housing loans directly to low-income
communities in informal settlements. The funding comes almost entirely from domestic
resources - a combination of national government, local government and community
contributions. Under this national program, people in illegal settlements can obtain legal land
tenure through various means such as direct purchase from the landowner or moving to
another location provided by the government.
Another example of efforts to improve institutional resilience is that of Santa Tecla.
Santa Tecla is part of the metropolitan area of El Salvador's capital, San Salvador. Santa
Tecla experienced two earthquakes in 2001. In just five seconds, landslides caused more than
700 deaths, displaced 20% of the city's land, and severely damaged 38% of the infrastructure.
The government of Santa Tecla thought deeply about what could be done to transform the
city and make it disaster-proof. The Santa Tecla government then realized the need to start
designing urban land management in a more responsible and sustainable manner. In this
regard, the government recognized the need for citizens to understand the importance of what
the government was doing or the small changes that would occur by encouraging
participation in the 'Mesas de Ciudadanos' (citizens' groups) program, which brings together
different stakeholder organizations in periodic discussions and decision-making.
Economic Resilience
Economic resilience refers to the economic diversity of communities such as the type of
employment, number of businesses, and their ability to function normally after a disaster.
Economic resilience in the concept of disaster resilience contains four definitions, namely:
(a) Robustness, the ability to avoid direct and indirect economic losses; (b) Redundancy, the
level of untapped or excess economic capacity; (c) Resourcefulness - stabilization measures;
and (d) Rapidity - the speed of return to pre-disaster conditions (Bruneau et al., 2003).
Australia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and China have all made efforts to improve
economic resilience after disasters. The city of Cairns, Australia sets up a regular budget
intended for disaster preparedness and response. The city has an annual operating budget that
includes funding for disaster management units, coordination centers, volunteer services and
community awareness programs. In recent years, its annual budget includes allocations for
the construction of buildings, emergency response vehicles and equipment, disaster risk
assessment software, flood warning network upgrades and drainage and flood mitigation
investments. These are the city's commitment to disaster risk reduction. These efforts are
complemented by investments and partnerships at the national level and also involve
professionals in the built environment, the private sector and academic institutions. Similar to
Australia, three other countries - the Philippines, China and Sri Lanka - also have policies to
support investment in disaster risk reduction. Since 2001, cities in the Philippines have been
required to allocate 5% of their local government budgets to disaster funds. Under the
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010; cities in the Philippines can spend
70% of this allocation on preparedness and relief/reserve equipment. Sri Lanka, through the
Ministry of Disaster Management announced that in 2011 the government allocated Rs. 8
billion for flood control programs in the capital, Colombo, while launching a safe urban
planning program to minimize disasters as part of the Resilient Cities Campaign. The funds
were used to clean canals, reconstruct drainage systems, and for other measures to prevent
flooding in Colombo. In China, provincial governors of two disaster-prone Chinese provinces
(Sichuan and Yunnan) committed additional resources to disaster reduction. The Sichuan
Provincial Government invested 2 billion Yuan to improve the local geological disaster
prevention system. The Yunnan Provincial Government, meanwhile, committed to invest at
least 10 billion yuan over ten years in local disaster prevention and assessment systems.
Social Resilience
Social resilience refers to the demographic profile of a community by gender, age,
ethnicity, socioeconomic status and other groupings as well as its social capital profile.
Although difficult to measure, social capital refers to the sense (values, norms and culture) of
community, the ability of groups of citizens to adapt and the sense of attachment to a place.
Strengthening social resilience in disaster management has been applied by Japan, Nepal and
China.
Japan has a "watch and learn" pattern where children and communities learn what they
call Mountain and City Risk as early as possible. Starting at the kindergarten level, Japanese
schools implement education on how to detect and react in disaster situations, conduct regular
disaster response drills and use "disaster watch". This time-consuming investment saved
many lives in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. One of the cities that implemented
this program is Saijo City. Saijo City is one of the cities with an old population in Japan. This
old population is a major problem in disaster response in Saijo City. To be more disaster
resilient, Saijo City needs the energy of young people who are not many. Therefore, Saijo
City implemented a disaster risk awareness program targeting school children. For 12 years,
the Saijo City government has focused on projects to improve the quality of the city's
physical environment, and "mountain and city observation" projects for children. Young
residents meet with the elderly to learn together about the risks faced by Saijo City and to
draw lessons from the 2004 typhoon disaster. Saijo City has developed a 'mountain and city
watching' handbook and established a teachers' association for disaster education and a
children's club for disaster prevention. On top of all this, a national disaster safety day was
implemented. Japan celebrates Disaster Prevention Day every year on September 1, the
anniversary of the great Kanto earthquake of 1923, and March 11, the anniversary of the
Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami.
Apart from Japan, Nepal and China are countries that also observe disaster days. In
Nepal, January 15 marks the anniversary of the great Nepal earthquake of 1934. In
Kathmandu, political leaders and prominent figures commemorated the event with activities
such as street parades, shaking table demonstrations, exhibitions on disaster-resistant
construction, street plays, interactive seminars, poster, art and other competitions, and
presentations for children. An earthquake simulation exercise was the highlight of the
commemorative event, with wide public participation and coverage by local media. China has
designated May 12 as National Disaster Safety Day, to commemorate the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake.
Disaster risk reduction and disaster resilience are integral parts of environmental,
economic, social and political sustainable development (ICLEI, 2010). To improve
governance towards resilience, there are five things that need to be considered, which include
(a) Understanding for whom the government regulates or manages;
(b) Use of a territorial approach in governance;
(c) Use of appropriate tools or methods for efficient land management; (d) Use of ICT and e-
governance; and (5) Implementation of innovative governance.
Keys to Successful Disaster Resilient City Governance
Cities that have been able to strengthen their resilience to disasters have provided some
of the following learning about how to manage cities to become disaster resilient. There are at
least ten key factors that determine whether a city becomes disaster resilient, as follows:
Having a Disaster Resilience Organization
Organizations that support the resilience of cities to disasters are needed to contribute to
the goal of sustainable urban development, a holistic approach in understanding potential
threats, and disaster risk governance that should be adopted. In this context, it is important to
involve decision-makers such as local governments, various officials and departments,
academia, business groups, and communities. Participation of these key groups and actors in
planning, implementation and monitoring, and effective organizational structures are
prerequisites for sound decision-making and practice of disaster risk reduction actions. This
will foster collaboration and partnership among all stakeholders for disaster risk prevention,
mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation. Recognizing that the
appropriate organizational structure will vary within and between countries, there are at least
three things that need to be considered, namely as follows:
Build and strengthen institutional capacity and coordination at the local level;
Building alliances and/or networks with all relevant stakeholder groups; and
Establish legislative frameworks and action mechanisms to achieve resilience.
Identify, Understand, and Utilize Current and Future Risk Scenarios
It is based on the premise that disaster risk management needs to be based on an
understanding of disaster risk scenarios across all dimensions of hazard characteristics, risk
exposure, capacity and vulnerability. Analysis and measurement of risk scenarios are
essential for informed decision-making, prioritizing programs or projects, and planning for
disaster risk reduction measures (prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response). The
need for both can be eliminated if local governments have a clear understanding of the risks
they face and fully discuss with the public and other stakeholders about risk scenarios and the
implementation of meaningful disaster risk reduction measures. There are two things that can
be done at this point, which are as follows:
Identify the most likely and most severe scenarios (worst case); and
Utilize information and measurement results from risk scenarios to make development
decisions by involving stakeholders.
Strengthening Financial Capacity for Disaster Resilience
Strengthening financial capacity can be done by including specific resources and specific
mechanisms that can be used to increase resilience. Financial resources can come from
municipal revenues, local or sectoral national distributions and allocations, public-private
partnerships and technical cooperation, as well as civil society and external organizations.
Financial mechanisms can include resilience financing and resilience self-help embedded in
broader development planning and spending. There are at least three ways in which efforts
can be made to increase awareness and financial capacity to build disaster resilient cities, as
follows:
Recognize the opportunity that building resilience to disasters equates to contributing to a
sound economic strategy;
Ensure a budget for resilience; and
Disseminate risk information for development decisions.
Development of Disaster Resilient City Design
Not all hazards or potential disasters can cause a disaster. A disaster occurs when a
potential disaster results in devastation that a community is unable to cope with on its own
without assistance from others. Therefore, preventive measures can help build better
resilience capacity, avoid and/or minimize disruption and destruction of networks and
infrastructure, which can lead to severe social and economic consequences. In addition,
integrating resilience concepts into infrastructure and socio-economic planning and
development will protect the city's development investments. In the context of developing
disaster-resilient urban design, there are several things that need to be considered and done,
namely as follows:
Place urban planning and land use management at the core of urban resilience through
land zoning and disaster-aware planning;
Mapping systemic and specific vulnerabilities; and
Mainstream resilience into ongoing updates of city master plans and sectoral strategies.
Protecting Natural Buffers to Improve Ecosystem Functions
Ecosystems provide essential services for disaster risk reduction as protection and
barriers against disaster threats and hazards. Ecosystems are central to disaster mitigation by
offering, for example, regulation against flooding and protecting steep slopes from potential
landslides. Ecosystems also increase the resilience of communities to withstand, cope with
and recover from disasters by providing multiple benefits such as food, firewood, clean water
and the like. Degraded ecosystems will not be able to provide such mitigation benefits and
resources, which in turn significantly increases community vulnerability. The process of
urban expansion changes the ecosystem fabric and often generates new risks and new
vulnerabilities. Recognizing the economic value and multiple benefits of healthy ecosystems
that act as natural buffers is important to reduce risks and contribute to the resilience and
sustainability of cities. Relevant ecosystem services may include, but are not limited to: water
retention or water infiltration; afforestation; urban vegetation; floodplains; mangroves, and
other coastal vegetation. Some things that need to be considered in efforts to increase
resilience through ecosystems are as follows:
Raising awareness of the impact of change environmental and ecosystem degradation on
disaster risk by recognizing the value and benefits of ecosystem services for disaster risk
prevention, protecting and or enhancing them as part of disaster risk reduction strategies
for the city;
Promote management of critical ecosystems to strengthen resilience to disasters;
Strengthen existing ecosystem management based on risk scenario assessments; and
Anticipate changes from climate trends, urbanization and make plans that allow
ecosystem services to remain.
Strengthening Institutional Capacity
Understanding the city's institutional background on past efforts towards risk reduction
or management and resilience building can help detect current gaps in local capacity to
coordinate and take action towards disaster prevention, mitigation, response and recovery.
Another advantage is to be able to identify the best and most appropriate approach effective to
strengthen relevant institutions in managing disaster risk. The institutions in question are the
central government and local governments. Other groups also have a role in disaster risk
management by complementing and supporting government measures. These groups include
the private sector that provides public services according to local needs, such as telephone,
water, energy, and health, as well as volunteer capacity or equipment in the event of a
disaster; owners and operators of industrial facilities; building owners (individuals or
companies); NGOs; professionals and academics, employers and labor organizations; and
cultural institutions and civil society organizations. Some things to note, are as follows:
Identifying the specific nature of each disaster risk and mapping the characteristics and
support needs of each institution. This requires reaching a common understanding of the
roles and responsibilities of each;
Building local capacity and strengthening participation in disaster management and
resilience building; and
Ensure consistency of disaster risk data and information among stakeholders. This can be
done by creating and implementing an information and data framework for resilience and
disaster risk reduction efforts.
Identifying, Understanding and Strengthening Social Capacity
Communities should take part in collective efforts to create disaster-resilient cities
through education, training and disaster awareness programs. All components of the
community must understand the hazards and risks they face, so that they can prepare and take
steps to cope with potential disasters. Education and capacity building programs are also key
to mobilizing citizen and community participation in disaster management strategies, such as
improving community preparedness and response to local early warnings. Some things that
need to be considered in improving community capacity to ensure disaster resilience are as
follows:
Establish a comprehensive response unit at the local level;
Develop risk reduction and resilience information;
Integrate disaster risk reduction and resilience into formal education and other training
programs;
Improving public education and awareness through information dissemination through the
business sector and media; and
Establish and maintain open access to data for disaster preparedness and response.
Improving Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure is an important part of urban governance and especially in relation to
emergency response conditions. Therefore, the government needs to pay special attention to
safety needs in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure so that it can continue to be
operational during emergencies. The main infrastructure required for city operations such as
transportation (roads, railways, airports and other ports), vehicle fuel supply lines,
telecommunications systems, utility systems, hospitals and health facilities, educational
institutions and school facilities, food supply chains, police and fire services, and so on. Some
things to note are as follows:
Measurement of critical infrastructure capacity and adequacy;
Strengthening vulnerable infrastructure (infrastructure replacement and procurement);
Build alliances with the private sector to leverage technical and financial resources and
ensure that private investments follow environmental and risk reduction norms; and
Recognize the need for service relevance and operational priorities during and after a
disaster.
Ensuring the Effectiveness of Disaster Response
Well-developed preparedness and response plans can not only save lives and property,
but also contribute to resilience and post-disaster recovery by reducing disaster impacts.
Preparedness efforts, early warning systems and communication systems will help ensure that
cities, communities and individuals threatened by hazards can act in sufficient time and
appropriately to reduce injuries, loss of life and damage to property or the environment.
Sustainability can be achieved if the community itself and local authorities understand the
importance and need for emergency preparedness and response at the local level. Some things
to consider are as follows:
Create and improve preparedness plans, including training;
Strengthening early warning systems; and
Improve the city's emergency response services.
Accelerate City Recovery and Build Back Better
Cities are built by multiple entities over decades or centuries, and are therefore very
difficult to rebuild in a short period of time. Until recently, there was a priority debate
between the need to rebuild quickly and rebuild safely and sustainably. A planned and
participatory recovery and reconstruction process will help the city to be able to reactivate
city life as soon as possible, restoring and rebuilding damaged infrastructure and restoring the
city's economy, empowering its citizens to rebuild their lives, homes and livelihoods.
Reconstruction should start as soon as possible, even before a potential disaster becomes a
disaster. Essentially, cities can foresee needs, establish operational mechanisms and assign
resources required as preparation and mitigation efforts, if supported by capable systems.
Recovery and rehabilitation can be planned long before a disaster occurs. Leadership,
coordination and funding are important parts of the effort. Some things to consider are as
follows:
Recovery must be addressed in multiple aspects and dimensions;
Include affected populations in efforts to define needs and recovery plans;
Recovery is an opportunity to build back better and enhance development;
Seeking resources, strengthening alliances and ensuring sustainability; and
Integrate disaster risk reduction in all investment decisions for recovery and
reconstruction.
Challenges in managing Disaster Resilient Cities
GSDRC (2014) outlines some of the challenges of managing disaster resilient cities in
terms of adaptive capacity, poverty and inequality, political economy, integration of disaster
resilience in aid operations and policies, disaster resilience analysis and measurement,
environmental support and government action, and financial conditions.
Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity relates to the capacity of systems, institutions, people and other
organisms to be able to adjust to potential damage, take benefit from opportunities or respond
to possible consequences (IPCC, 2014). Adaptive capacity includes prevention strategies,
which involve making choices to avoid events, and impact minimization strategies. Existing
research has highlighted that adaptive capacities are interrelated, and no single factor can
explain the level of disaster resilience in any context. For example, the role of indigenous
knowledge must be understood as closely linked to socio-economic variables that support or
undermine adaptation efforts.
Poverty and Inequality Conditions
The capacity of individuals, families or communities to prepare for, withstand and
respond to hazards or crises is enabled and constrained by social status, income and ethnicity
(Bosher et al., 2007). There is a common understanding that it is the poor who will suffer the
greatest losses from disasters (Oxfam, 2013; Shepherd et al., 2013). In 2008, the United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) noted that 94% of all people killed by
disasters between 1975-2000 were from low- or lower-middle-income groups (UNISDR,
2008). Disasters deprive people of assets and livelihoods, reproducing poverty and inequality
(UNISDR, 2008; Shepherd et al., 2013). Therefore, good disaster risk management can
reduce the impact of disasters, especially on the lower middle class (Shepherd et al., 2013).
Research in eight villages in coastal Andhra Pradesh in southern India concluded that
caste is a key factor determining access to resources essential to aid recovery from disasters
(Bosher et al., 2007). In this case, 'lower' castes lacked access to the assets, public facilities
and political networks necessary to aid their recovery. Gender is a tangible form of inequality
that shapes vulnerability to disasters (Ganapati, 2012, 2013; OCHA, 2012; Oxfam UK, 2012;
Turnbull et al., 2013). For women and girls, injustices in everyday life, not just during
disasters, tend to create greater risk, reduce life chances, and deepen material and non-
material losses (Bradshaw & Fordham, 2013). In addition, there is also great concern
expressed in the literature about the vulnerability of other high-risk populations: children, the
elderly, and people with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Such groups can be disadvantaged
and discriminated against, and can face a range of inequalities that magnify their vulnerability
risk (Peek et al., 2010). On the one hand, these disadvantaged groups are usually more
exposed and vulnerable to hazards. However, they can also contribute to building disaster
resilience (Oliver-Smith et al., 2012; Oxfam, 2013; Turnbull et al., 2013).
Political Economy
A number of aspects of a country's political economy can affect disaster resilience. One
of these is regulations relating to urban building codes and land use, poor regulations, or poor
enforcement of regulations, can create economic and social conditions that put vulnerable
groups at greater risk and that are difficult to remedy (GFDRR, 2010; Turnbull et al., 2013;
Wilkinson, 2012a). Another important issue, documented in several case studies, is how
corruption and patronage systems limit adaptive capacity and weaken disaster resilience. One
study in Bangladesh found that pre- and post-disaster interventions were co-opted and used to
increase the assets of political elites to the detriment of low-income groups (Mahmud &
Prowse, 2012). In many developing countries, public policy and political commitment to
disaster resilience is suboptimal. In a meta-review of evidence, Wilkinson (2012a) attributes
this to a lack of political interest and will, unfavorable economic and political incentives,
information gaps, and coordination problems.
Integration of Disaster Resilience in Aid Operation and Policy
In many cases, disaster resilience efforts are hampered by political economy, power and
inequality, including gender inequality (OCHA, 2012; Oxfam, 2013; UNISDR, 2011).
Therefore, Oxfam (2013) recommends a lens that focuses on politics and equality to aid
resilience, which focuses on several aspects including the following:
Social insurance and other programs that target disadvantaged groups who need greater
support and services to have equal opportunities;
Build pro-poor institutions at all levels, which represent and respond to the needs and
capacities of the most vulnerable;
Ensure rights and accountability, and the ability of women and men to assert their rights
and hold power holders accountable through participation in decision-making at all levels;
and
Provide free essential basic services for health and education, and social protection
Disaster Resilience Analysis and Measurement
Several organizations have developed guidelines for measuring disaster resilience. One
widely used guideline is the resilience risk framework, which uses the five dimensions of
resilience identified in the Hyogo Framework for Action (Twigg, 2009). These five
dimensions include governance, risk assessment, knowledge and education, risk management
and vulnerability reduction, and disaster preparedness and response. Other organizations'
frameworks measure different dimensions of resilience. Oxfam, for example, recently
developed a multi-dimensional framework that incorporates livelihoods, innovation capacity,
access to emergency resources, integrity of the natural environment, and social and
institutional capacity (Hughes et al., 2013).
Environmental Support and Government Action
In this context there are three things that need attention, namely: multi-level and multi-
stakeholder working in an enabling environment, supportive actions from the national
government, and supportive actions from local governments.
Multi-level and multi-stakeholder working in an enabling environment
Group interventions and participation in disaster risk reduction at different scales and levels
of action are critical. The policy and institutional environment that supports long-term
disaster resilience should also involve governments supporting the capacity of individuals,
civil society, the private sector and at-risk populations to manage and adapt to risk. Based on
desk and field research in disaster-prone areas in three countries, Reaching Resilience (n.d.)
found that a multi-stakeholder, multi-level approach is effective when integrating disaster risk
reduction, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction in its intervention efforts, as
follows:
Understand and create dialog about people at risk mapping;
Explore appropriate institutional and governance contexts;
Analyzing strengths and relationships between stakeholders;
Supportive actions from local government
Turnbull et al. (2013) provide detailed guidance on risk governance at the local level. To
strengthen risk prevention, efforts are needed to improve local stakeholders' access to public
information, hazard mapping, use of forecasting and early warning systems. Strategies for
dealing with high-impact disasters include the development of disaster management
committees, emergency services, emergency plans and emergency funds, as well as social
insurance mechanisms. Strategies to protect assets and services include developing disaster-
resistant building techniques for houses, schools and hospitals, and investing in water and
sanitation technologies for disaster risk reduction.
Financial Condition
Efforts to improve disaster resilience are typically characterized by shortcomings in
terms of funding, cost and effectiveness of interventions for resilience that are still limited,
yet the need is growing (DFID, 2011; GFDRR, 2010). Multi-year funding for disaster
resilience is often recommended, especially for protracted crises (Frankenberger et al., 2012).
Despite these challenges, several studies have shown that building disaster resilience is more
cost-effective than a late response (Cabot Venton et al., 2013; GFDRR, 2010). The cost-
effectiveness of prevention can essentially be improved through efforts, not least on open
access to information about hazards or risk exposure, provision of disaster infrastructure and
services, other disaster investments, and stakeholder engagement in disaster risk
management.
Conclusion
Ensuring a city has disaster-resilient urban governance is not an easy task. There are
many factors that need to be considered and are interrelated with each other. Disaster resilient
city governance is strongly influenced by infrastructure resilience, institutional resilience,
economic resilience and social resilience. These four things must be managed properly and
continuously in order to create a disaster resilient city. From the ten key success factors of
disaster resilient governance that have been presented in the discussion session, it can be
concluded that awareness of the importance of disaster mitigation is the initial guide to the
success of disaster resilient city governance. Besides the urgency of the existence of
leadership, communication, coordination, participation and information disclosure are also
considered as the backbone for the sustainability of disaster resilient governance.
Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure resilience refers to reducing the vulnerability of structures such as
buildings and transportation systems. Infrastructure resilience also refers to protective
capacities such as maintenance facilities health, vulnerability of buildings to hazards, critical
infrastructure, availability of roads for evacuation, post-disaster supply lines and community
capacity for response and recovery. One country that is trying to strengthen infrastructure
resilience in disaster management is the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands is one of the
areas that is often visited by Atlantic hurricanes. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan, the worst storm in
86 years, hit the largest island, Grand Cayman and damaged 90% of the buildings (Young,
2004). Electricity, water and communications were disrupted for months in some areas of the
Cayman Islands. The island then began the process of rebuilding on a large scale, and within
a national strategic framework for disaster risk reduction. Among other efforts, a 124-bed
hospital was built to Category 5 hurricane standards. This health facility remained functional
during and after Hurricane Ivan, alongside efforts to provide shelter for more than 1,000
people (CY Gov, 2005).
Institutional Resilience
Institutional resilience refers to the systems, governmental and non-governmental that
manage a community. Institutions, whether built to address disaster risk or not, can influence
the vulnerability of different community groups through several pathways and conditions
(Lebel et al., 2006). In the conceptualization of disaster risk, the influence of institutionalized
capacities and practices on disaster risk management is also influenced by ecological and
social resilience and the attributes of the disaster event itself.
In disaster risk management, the institutional and political development context is geared
towards answering five questions: when do disasters occur; who and what is at risk; who is
responsible; how does disaster risk change; and how to evaluate (IFA, 2006). Examples of
institutional resilience efforts have been made by Thailand and El Savador. Thailand through
the Baan Mankong program attempted to improve the condition of informal settlements by
launching an initiative to upgrade and improve the condition of slums and squatter
settlements. Thailand's slum upgrading and improvement program adopts a community-based
approach to solving the problems of unsafe housing and poor living conditions, and puts
residents at the heart of the process (Archer, 2012). The Baan Mankong program channels
funds in the form of infrastructure subsidies and housing loans directly to low-income
communities in informal settlements. The funding comes almost entirely from domestic
resources - a combination of national government, local government and community
contributions. Under this national program, people in illegal settlements can obtain legal land
tenure through various means such as direct purchase from the landowner or moving to
another location provided by the government.
Another example of efforts to improve institutional resilience is that of Santa Tecla.
Santa Tecla is part of the metropolitan area of El Salvador's capital, San Salvador. Santa
Tecla experienced two earthquakes in 2001. In just five seconds, landslides caused more than
700 deaths, displaced 20% of the city's land, and severely damaged 38% of the infrastructure.
The government of Santa Tecla thought deeply about what could be done to transform the
city and make it disaster-proof. The Santa Tecla government then realized the need to start
designing urban land management in a more responsible and sustainable manner. In this
regard, the government recognized the need for citizens to understand the importance of what
the government was doing or the small changes that would occur by encouraging
participation in the 'Mesas de Ciudadanos' (citizens' groups) program, which brings together
different stakeholder organizations in periodic discussions and decision-making.
Economic Resilience
Economic resilience refers to the economic diversity of communities such as the type of
employment, number of businesses, and their ability to function normally after a disaster.
Economic resilience in the concept of disaster resilience contains four definitions, namely:
(a) Robustness, the ability to avoid direct and indirect economic losses; (b) Redundancy, the
level of untapped or excess economic capacity; (c) Resourcefulness - stabilization measures;
and (d) Rapidity - the speed of return to pre-disaster conditions (Bruneau et al., 2003).
Australia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and China have all made efforts to improve
economic resilience after disasters. The city of Cairns, Australia sets up a regular budget
intended for disaster preparedness and response. The city has an annual operating budget that
includes funding for disaster management units, coordination centers, volunteer services and
community awareness programs. In recent years, its annual budget includes allocations for
the construction of buildings, emergency response vehicles and equipment, disaster risk
assessment software, flood warning network upgrades and drainage and flood mitigation
investments. These are the city's commitment to disaster risk reduction. These efforts are
complemented by investments and partnerships at the national level and also involve
professionals in the built environment, the private sector and academic institutions. Similar to
Australia, three other countries - the Philippines, China and Sri Lanka - also have policies to
support investment in disaster risk reduction. Since 2001, cities in the Philippines have been
required to allocate 5% of their local government budgets to disaster funds. Under the
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010; cities in the Philippines can spend
70% of this allocation on preparedness and relief/reserve equipment. Sri Lanka, through the
Ministry of Disaster Management announced that in 2011 the government allocated Rs. 8
billion for flood control programs in the capital, Colombo, while launching a safe urban
planning program to minimize disasters as part of the Resilient Cities Campaign. The funds
were used to clean canals, reconstruct drainage systems, and for other measures to prevent
flooding in Colombo. In China, provincial governors of two disaster-prone Chinese provinces
(Sichuan and Yunnan) committed additional resources to disaster reduction. The Sichuan
Provincial Government invested 2 billion Yuan to improve the local geological disaster
prevention system. The Yunnan Provincial Government, meanwhile, committed to invest at
least 10 billion yuan over ten years in local disaster prevention and assessment systems.
Social Resilience
Social resilience refers to the demographic profile of a community by gender, age,
ethnicity, socioeconomic status and other groupings as well as its social capital profile.
Although difficult to measure, social capital refers to the sense (values, norms and culture) of
community, the ability of groups of citizens to adapt and the sense of attachment to a place.
Strengthening social resilience in disaster management has been applied by Japan, Nepal and
China.
Japan has a "watch and learn" pattern where children and communities learn what they
call Mountain and City Risk as early as possible. Starting at the kindergarten level, Japanese
schools implement education on how to detect and react in disaster situations, conduct regular
disaster response drills and use "disaster watch". This time-consuming investment saved
many lives in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. One of the cities that implemented
this program is Saijo City. Saijo City is one of the cities with an old population in Japan. This
old population is a major problem in disaster response in Saijo City. To be more disaster
resilient, Saijo City needs the energy of young people who are not many. Therefore, Saijo
City implemented a disaster risk awareness program targeting school children. For 12 years,
the Saijo City government has focused on projects to improve the quality of the city's
physical environment, and "mountain and city observation" projects for children. Young
residents meet with the elderly to learn together about the risks faced by Saijo City and to
draw lessons from the 2004 typhoon disaster. Saijo City has developed a 'mountain and city
watching' handbook and established a teachers' association for disaster education and a
children's club for disaster prevention. On top of all this, a national disaster safety day was
implemented. Japan celebrates Disaster Prevention Day every year on September 1, the
anniversary of the great Kanto earthquake of 1923, and March 11, the anniversary of the
Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami.
Apart from Japan, Nepal and China are countries that also observe disaster days. In
Nepal, January 15 marks the anniversary of the great Nepal earthquake of 1934. In
Kathmandu, political leaders and prominent figures commemorated the event with activities
such as street parades, shaking table demonstrations, exhibitions on disaster-resistant
construction, street plays, interactive seminars, poster, art and other competitions, and
presentations for children. An earthquake simulation exercise was the highlight of the
commemorative event, with wide public participation and coverage by local media. China has
designated May 12 as National Disaster Safety Day, to commemorate the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake.
Disaster risk reduction and disaster resilience are integral parts of environmental,
economic, social and political sustainable development (ICLEI, 2010). To improve
governance towards resilience, there are five things that need to be considered, which include
(a) Understanding for whom the government regulates or manages;
(b) Use of a territorial approach in governance;
(c) Use of appropriate tools or methods for efficient land management; (d) Use of ICT and e-
governance; and (5) Implementation of innovative governance.
Keys to Successful Disaster Resilient City Governance
Cities that have been able to strengthen their resilience to disasters have provided some
of the following learning about how to manage cities to become disaster resilient. There are at
least ten key factors that determine whether a city becomes disaster resilient, as follows:
Having a Disaster Resilience Organization
Organizations that support the resilience of cities to disasters are needed to contribute to
the goal of sustainable urban development, a holistic approach in understanding potential
threats, and disaster risk governance that should be adopted. In this context, it is important to
involve decision-makers such as local governments, various officials and departments,
academia, business groups, and communities. Participation of these key groups and actors in
planning, implementation and monitoring, and effective organizational structures are
prerequisites for sound decision-making and practice of disaster risk reduction actions. This
will foster collaboration and partnership among all stakeholders for disaster risk prevention,
mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation. Recognizing that the
appropriate organizational structure will vary within and between countries, there are at least
three things that need to be considered, namely as follows:
Build and strengthen institutional capacity and coordination at the local level;
Building alliances and/or networks with all relevant stakeholder groups; and
Establish legislative frameworks and action mechanisms to achieve resilience.
Identify, Understand, and Utilize Current and Future Risk Scenarios
It is based on the premise that disaster risk management needs to be based on an
understanding of disaster risk scenarios across all dimensions of hazard characteristics, risk
exposure, capacity and vulnerability. Analysis and measurement of risk scenarios are
essential for informed decision-making, prioritizing programs or projects, and planning for
disaster risk reduction measures (prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response). The
need for both can be eliminated if local governments have a clear understanding of the risks
they face and fully discuss with the public and other stakeholders about risk scenarios and the
implementation of meaningful disaster risk reduction measures. There are two things that can
be done at this point, which are as follows:
Identify the most likely and most severe scenarios (worst case); and
Utilize information and measurement results from risk scenarios to make development
decisions by involving stakeholders.
Strengthening Financial Capacity for Disaster Resilience
Strengthening financial capacity can be done by including specific resources and specific
mechanisms that can be used to increase resilience. Financial resources can come from
municipal revenues, local or sectoral national distributions and allocations, public-private
partnerships and technical cooperation, as well as civil society and external organizations.
Financial mechanisms can include resilience financing and resilience self-help embedded in
broader development planning and spending. There are at least three ways in which efforts
can be made to increase awareness and financial capacity to build disaster resilient cities, as
follows:
Recognize the opportunity that building resilience to disasters equates to contributing to a
sound economic strategy;
Ensure a budget for resilience; and
Disseminate risk information for development decisions.
Development of Disaster Resilient City Design
Not all hazards or potential disasters can cause a disaster. A disaster occurs when a
potential disaster results in devastation that a community is unable to cope with on its own
without assistance from others. Therefore, preventive measures can help build better
resilience capacity, avoid and/or minimize disruption and destruction of networks and
infrastructure, which can lead to severe social and economic consequences. In addition,
integrating resilience concepts into infrastructure and socio-economic planning and
development will protect the city's development investments. In the context of developing
disaster-resilient urban design, there are several things that need to be considered and done,
namely as follows:
Place urban planning and land use management at the core of urban resilience through
land zoning and disaster-aware planning;
Mapping systemic and specific vulnerabilities; and
Mainstream resilience into ongoing updates of city master plans and sectoral strategies.
Protecting Natural Buffers to Improve Ecosystem Functions
Ecosystems provide essential services for disaster risk reduction as protection and
barriers against disaster threats and hazards. Ecosystems are central to disaster mitigation by
offering, for example, regulation against flooding and protecting steep slopes from potential
landslides. Ecosystems also increase the resilience of communities to withstand, cope with
and recover from disasters by providing multiple benefits such as food, firewood, clean water
and the like. Degraded ecosystems will not be able to provide such mitigation benefits and
resources, which in turn significantly increases community vulnerability. The process of
urban expansion changes the ecosystem fabric and often generates new risks and new
vulnerabilities. Recognizing the economic value and multiple benefits of healthy ecosystems
that act as natural buffers is important to reduce risks and contribute to the resilience and
sustainability of cities. Relevant ecosystem services may include, but are not limited to: water
retention or water infiltration; afforestation; urban vegetation; floodplains; mangroves, and
other coastal vegetation. Some things that need to be considered in efforts to increase
resilience through ecosystems are as follows:
Raising awareness of the impact of change environmental and ecosystem degradation on
disaster risk by recognizing the value and benefits of ecosystem services for disaster risk
prevention, protecting and or enhancing them as part of disaster risk reduction strategies
for the city;
Promote management of critical ecosystems to strengthen resilience to disasters;
Strengthen existing ecosystem management based on risk scenario assessments; and
Anticipate changes from climate trends, urbanization and make plans that allow
ecosystem services to remain.
Strengthening Institutional Capacity
Understanding the city's institutional background on past efforts towards risk reduction
or management and resilience building can help detect current gaps in local capacity to
coordinate and take action towards disaster prevention, mitigation, response and recovery.
Another advantage is to be able to identify the best and most appropriate approach effective to
strengthen relevant institutions in managing disaster risk. The institutions in question are the
central government and local governments. Other groups also have a role in disaster risk
management by complementing and supporting government measures. These groups include
the private sector that provides public services according to local needs, such as telephone,
water, energy, and health, as well as volunteer capacity or equipment in the event of a
disaster; owners and operators of industrial facilities; building owners (individuals or
companies); NGOs; professionals and academics, employers and labor organizations; and
cultural institutions and civil society organizations. Some things to note, are as follows:
Identifying the specific nature of each disaster risk and mapping the characteristics and
support needs of each institution. This requires reaching a common understanding of the
roles and responsibilities of each;
Building local capacity and strengthening participation in disaster management and
resilience building; and
Ensure consistency of disaster risk data and information among stakeholders. This can be
done by creating and implementing an information and data framework for resilience and
disaster risk reduction efforts.
Identifying, Understanding and Strengthening Social Capacity
Communities should take part in collective efforts to create disaster-resilient cities
through education, training and disaster awareness programs. All components of the
community must understand the hazards and risks they face, so that they can prepare and take
steps to cope with potential disasters. Education and capacity building programs are also key
to mobilizing citizen and community participation in disaster management strategies, such as
improving community preparedness and response to local early warnings. Some things that
need to be considered in improving community capacity to ensure disaster resilience are as
follows:
Establish a comprehensive response unit at the local level;
Develop risk reduction and resilience information;
Integrate disaster risk reduction and resilience into formal education and other training
programs;
Improving public education and awareness through information dissemination through the
business sector and media; and
Establish and maintain open access to data for disaster preparedness and response.
Improving Infrastructure Resilience
Infrastructure is an important part of urban governance and especially in relation to
emergency response conditions. Therefore, the government needs to pay special attention to
safety needs in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure so that it can continue to be
operational during emergencies. The main infrastructure required for city operations such as
transportation (roads, railways, airports and other ports), vehicle fuel supply lines,
telecommunications systems, utility systems, hospitals and health facilities, educational
institutions and school facilities, food supply chains, police and fire services, and so on. Some
things to note are as follows:
Measurement of critical infrastructure capacity and adequacy;
Strengthening vulnerable infrastructure (infrastructure replacement and procurement);
Build alliances with the private sector to leverage technical and financial resources and
ensure that private investments follow environmental and risk reduction norms; and
Recognize the need for service relevance and operational priorities during and after a
disaster.
Ensuring the Effectiveness of Disaster Response
Well-developed preparedness and response plans can not only save lives and property,
but also contribute to resilience and post-disaster recovery by reducing disaster impacts.
Preparedness efforts, early warning systems and communication systems will help ensure that
cities, communities and individuals threatened by hazards can act in sufficient time and
appropriately to reduce injuries, loss of life and damage to property or the environment.
Sustainability can be achieved if the community itself and local authorities understand the
importance and need for emergency preparedness and response at the local level. Some things
to consider are as follows:
Create and improve preparedness plans, including training;
Strengthening early warning systems; and
Improve the city's emergency response services.
Accelerate City Recovery and Build Back Better
Cities are built by multiple entities over decades or centuries, and are therefore very
difficult to rebuild in a short period of time. Until recently, there was a priority debate
between the need to rebuild quickly and rebuild safely and sustainably. A planned and
participatory recovery and reconstruction process will help the city to be able to reactivate
city life as soon as possible, restoring and rebuilding damaged infrastructure and restoring the
city's economy, empowering its citizens to rebuild their lives, homes and livelihoods.
Reconstruction should start as soon as possible, even before a potential disaster becomes a
disaster. Essentially, cities can foresee needs, establish operational mechanisms and assign
resources required as preparation and mitigation efforts, if supported by capable systems.
Recovery and rehabilitation can be planned long before a disaster occurs. Leadership,
coordination and funding are important parts of the effort. Some things to consider are as
follows:
Recovery must be addressed in multiple aspects and dimensions;
Include affected populations in efforts to define needs and recovery plans;
Recovery is an opportunity to build back better and enhance development;
Seeking resources, strengthening alliances and ensuring sustainability; and
Integrate disaster risk reduction in all investment decisions for recovery and
reconstruction.
Challenges in managing Disaster Resilient Cities
GSDRC (2014) outlines some of the challenges of managing disaster resilient cities in
terms of adaptive capacity, poverty and inequality, political economy, integration of disaster
resilience in aid operations and policies, disaster resilience analysis and measurement,
environmental support and government action, and financial conditions.
Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity relates to the capacity of systems, institutions, people and other
organisms to be able to adjust to potential damage, take benefit from opportunities or respond
to possible consequences (IPCC, 2014). Adaptive capacity includes prevention strategies,
which involve making choices to avoid events, and impact minimization strategies. Existing
research has highlighted that adaptive capacities are interrelated, and no single factor can
explain the level of disaster resilience in any context. For example, the role of indigenous
knowledge must be understood as closely linked to socio-economic variables that support or
undermine adaptation efforts.
Poverty and Inequality Conditions
The capacity of individuals, families or communities to prepare for, withstand and
respond to hazards or crises is enabled and constrained by social status, income and ethnicity
(Bosher et al., 2007). There is a common understanding that it is the poor who will suffer the
greatest losses from disasters (Oxfam, 2013; Shepherd et al., 2013). In 2008, the United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) noted that 94% of all people killed by
disasters between 1975-2000 were from low- or lower-middle-income groups (UNISDR,
2008). Disasters deprive people of assets and livelihoods, reproducing poverty and inequality
(UNISDR, 2008; Shepherd et al., 2013). Therefore, good disaster risk management can
reduce the impact of disasters, especially on the lower middle class (Shepherd et al., 2013).
Research in eight villages in coastal Andhra Pradesh in southern India concluded that
caste is a key factor determining access to resources essential to aid recovery from disasters
(Bosher et al., 2007). In this case, 'lower' castes lacked access to the assets, public facilities
and political networks necessary to aid their recovery. Gender is a tangible form of inequality
that shapes vulnerability to disasters (Ganapati, 2012, 2013; OCHA, 2012; Oxfam UK, 2012;
Turnbull et al., 2013). For women and girls, injustices in everyday life, not just during
disasters, tend to create greater risk, reduce life chances, and deepen material and non-
material losses (Bradshaw & Fordham, 2013). In addition, there is also great concern
expressed in the literature about the vulnerability of other high-risk populations: children, the
elderly, and people with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Such groups can be disadvantaged
and discriminated against, and can face a range of inequalities that magnify their vulnerability
risk (Peek et al., 2010). On the one hand, these disadvantaged groups are usually more
exposed and vulnerable to hazards. However, they can also contribute to building disaster
resilience (Oliver-Smith et al., 2012; Oxfam, 2013; Turnbull et al., 2013).
Political Economy
A number of aspects of a country's political economy can affect disaster resilience. One
of these is regulations relating to urban building codes and land use, poor regulations, or poor
enforcement of regulations, can create economic and social conditions that put vulnerable
groups at greater risk and that are difficult to remedy (GFDRR, 2010; Turnbull et al., 2013;
Wilkinson, 2012a). Another important issue, documented in several case studies, is how
corruption and patronage systems limit adaptive capacity and weaken disaster resilience. One
study in Bangladesh found that pre- and post-disaster interventions were co-opted and used to
increase the assets of political elites to the detriment of low-income groups (Mahmud &
Prowse, 2012). In many developing countries, public policy and political commitment to
disaster resilience is suboptimal. In a meta-review of evidence, Wilkinson (2012a) attributes
this to a lack of political interest and will, unfavorable economic and political incentives,
information gaps, and coordination problems.
Integration of Disaster Resilience in Aid Operation and Policy
In many cases, disaster resilience efforts are hampered by political economy, power and
inequality, including gender inequality (OCHA, 2012; Oxfam, 2013; UNISDR, 2011).
Therefore, Oxfam (2013) recommends a lens that focuses on politics and equality to aid
resilience, which focuses on several aspects including the following:
Social insurance and other programs that target disadvantaged groups who need greater
support and services to have equal opportunities;
Build pro-poor institutions at all levels, which represent and respond to the needs and
capacities of the most vulnerable;
Ensure rights and accountability, and the ability of women and men to assert their rights
and hold power holders accountable through participation in decision-making at all levels;
and
Provide free essential basic services for health and education, and social protection
Disaster Resilience Analysis and Measurement
Several organizations have developed guidelines for measuring disaster resilience. One
widely used guideline is the resilience risk framework, which uses the five dimensions of
resilience identified in the Hyogo Framework for Action (Twigg, 2009). These five
dimensions include governance, risk assessment, knowledge and education, risk management
and vulnerability reduction, and disaster preparedness and response. Other organizations'
frameworks measure different dimensions of resilience. Oxfam, for example, recently
developed a multi-dimensional framework that incorporates livelihoods, innovation capacity,
access to emergency resources, integrity of the natural environment, and social and
institutional capacity (Hughes et al., 2013).
Environmental Support and Government Action
In this context there are three things that need attention, namely: multi-level and multi-
stakeholder working in an enabling environment, supportive actions from the national
government, and supportive actions from local governments.
Multi-level and multi-stakeholder working in an enabling environment
Group interventions and participation in disaster risk reduction at different scales and levels
of action are critical. The policy and institutional environment that supports long-term
disaster resilience should also involve governments supporting the capacity of individuals,
civil society, the private sector and at-risk populations to manage and adapt to risk. Based on
desk and field research in disaster-prone areas in three countries, Reaching Resilience (n.d.)
found that a multi-stakeholder, multi-level approach is effective when integrating disaster risk
reduction, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction in its intervention efforts, as
follows:
Understand and create dialog about people at risk mapping;
Explore appropriate institutional and governance contexts;
Analyzing strengths and relationships between stakeholders;
Supportive actions from local government
Turnbull et al. (2013) provide detailed guidance on risk governance at the local level. To
strengthen risk prevention, efforts are needed to improve local stakeholders' access to public
information, hazard mapping, use of forecasting and early warning systems. Strategies for
dealing with high-impact disasters include the development of disaster management
committees, emergency services, emergency plans and emergency funds, as well as social
insurance mechanisms. Strategies to protect assets and services include developing disaster-
resistant building techniques for houses, schools and hospitals, and investing in water and
sanitation technologies for disaster risk reduction.
Financial Condition
Efforts to improve disaster resilience are typically characterized by shortcomings in
terms of funding, cost and effectiveness of interventions for resilience that are still limited,
yet the need is growing (DFID, 2011; GFDRR, 2010). Multi-year funding for disaster
resilience is often recommended, especially for protracted crises (Frankenberger et al., 2012).
Despite these challenges, several studies have shown that building disaster resilience is more
cost-effective than a late response (Cabot Venton et al., 2013; GFDRR, 2010). The cost-
effectiveness of prevention can essentially be improved through efforts, not least on open
access to information about hazards or risk exposure, provision of disaster infrastructure and
services, other disaster investments, and stakeholder engagement in disaster risk
management.
Conclusion
Ensuring a city has disaster-resilient urban governance is not an easy task. There are
many factors that need to be considered and are interrelated with each other. Disaster resilient
city governance is strongly influenced by infrastructure resilience, institutional resilience,
economic resilience and social resilience. These four things must be managed properly and
continuously in order to create a disaster resilient city. From the ten key success factors of
disaster resilient governance that have been presented in the discussion session, it can be
concluded that awareness of the importance of disaster mitigation is the initial guide to the
success of disaster resilient city governance. Besides the urgency of the existence of
leadership, communication, coordination, participation and information disclosure are also
considered as the backbone for the sustainability of disaster resilient governance.
