Reducing hazard vulnerability through local government engagement and action

Abstract

The concept of a natural hazard is a human construct. It is the interaction with human communities and settlements that defines a natural phenomenon as a natural hazard. Thus the end point of hazard mitigation and hazard vulnerability assessment must involve an attempt to reduce, or mitigate, the impact of the natural hazard on human communities. The responsibility to mitigate hazard impact falls primarily upon governments and closely connected non-government and private institutional agencies. In particular, it is most often local government that takes the responsibility for safeguarding its own communities, infrastructure and people. Hazard vulnerability of specific local communities is best assessed by the local government or council, which then faces the responsibility to translate that assessment into community education and infrastructural safeguards for hazard mitigation. This paper illustrates the process of local government engagement in hazard mitigation in Australia, through the Natural Disaster Risk Management Studies, as a first step towards natural disaster reduction.

Adaptive governance and managing resilience to natural hazards

“…This organizational and inspirational role poses serious challenges at the best of times. But they constitute almost impossible demands because they arise at a moment when these institutions have neither the resources nor capacity to do so, and may have lost both critical infrastructure and personnel as a result of the disaster's impact (King 2008;Brody, Kang, and Bernhardt 2010;Jabeen, Johnson, and Allen 2010).…”

“…There is an increasing emphasis in the literature on the need for flexible organizations, policies, and institutions in managing and reducing disasters (Bull-Kamanga et al 2003;Klein, Nicholls, and Thomalla 2003;King 2007;Warner 2008). An abundance of case studies of community selforganization at different stages of disaster management exist (see, for example, Paton and Johnston 2001;Menoni 2001;Nakagawa and Shaw 2004;Srinivas and Nakagawa 2008;Surjan and Shaw 2009;Aldrich 2011).…”

“…An abundance of case studies of community selforganization at different stages of disaster management exist (see, for example, Paton and Johnston 2001;Menoni 2001;Nakagawa and Shaw 2004;Srinivas and Nakagawa 2008;Surjan and Shaw 2009;Aldrich 2011). In Australia, King (2007) observed a "plethora of organizations" by which a community organizes itself after a disaster, reassigning priorities and using existing organizations and networks for new purposes. In Japan, jishu-bosai-soshiki, translated as the "autonomous organization for disaster reduction," takes effect during emergency situations (Bajek, Matsuda, and Okada 2008).…”

What Motivates Local Governments to Invest in Critical Infrastructure? Lessons from Chile

“…The local scale is particularly important for risk reduction because most human experiences and decisions related to DRR happen at the local level [4, [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. At this scale, human security and quality of life depend partly on how local governments provide public goods and services, such as critical infrastructures.…”

Political Ecology Approach to Island Tourism Planning and Climate Change Adaptation: A Methodological Exploration

“…The 'construction' of scientific knowledge is dependent on the principle that one cannot separate the human and societal contexts upon which research is being undertaken. For example, in disaster research, the decision as to what constitutes a natural hazard is socially determined by the interaction of human communities, and disaster risk reduction depends heavily on how to use and interpret hazard knowledge for appropriate action (King, 2008).…”