Disaster Risk Management and Perception - the Twin Tale

I was only 19 when the Tsunami struck the shores of Southern India in 2004. Being involved in the fundraising and relief efforts, I witnessed first hand the magnitude of devastation that had resulted. My first thought was how can the “higher powers” be so cruel? Why kill so many people? What was their fault?

In search for answers, I met communities and staff at the United Nations, read articles on the Tsunami impact and how this level of impact could have been mitigated….It was then that I realized that though the Tsunami itself could not have been prevented, much could have been done, across South and South-East Asia, to reduce the magnitude of the Tsunami impact - by governments, international organizations and communities themselves. For example, if small villages built right next to the ocean were some kilometers inland, they may not have been completely washed away; or if proper rescue routes were highlighted to reach “safe zones”, directionless people may not have swum deeper into the ocean and died as a result. There are many such preparatory measures which could have been taken.

Subsequently, during my 6 years at the World Bank, I was primarily responsible for the Bank dialogue on Disaster Risk Management (DRM) in a few countries in the Middle East and North Africa region. To specify, the “disaster” in DRM refers only to those created by natural hazards like earthquakes, floods, landslides etc. and not to those manifested by human action like wars or technological hazards like oil spills.

At the Bank, I was part of some fascinating DRM projects ranging from constructing disaster resilient infrastructure and designing laws on DRM at a national level to supporting communities in identifying mitigation and adaptation measures at the village or district level. One such exciting project was the Integrated Risk Management work in Morocco. Given my behavioral econ frame of mind, I was always sensitive to how the different stakeholders (governments, multi laterals and communities) reacted to DRM and perhaps even risk in general.

At the national level, I noticed the following common risk perceptions and resulting questions:

1. “What is the probability that the next disaster will strike during my time in office?”
2. “If it does, then what is the impact on my budget?”
3. (To put it bluntly) “Will I get political mileage by making DRM a government priority?”

At the community level, the perceptions were influenced by more social factors:

1. “Generations of my family have lived in this village, how can I move to another geography”
2. “This is an act of God. If I am meant to die, I will. How can I go against God by preparing for it?”
3. “The Government is responsible for taking care of us. Why do we, the people, need to invest in mitigation?”

Based on these observations, some of my key takeaways about perceptions of risk to natural hazards included (among other things):

1. Risk perceptions change with intensity and occurrence of risks - The perceptions I lay out above usually belong to countries and communities who experience a large scale hazard, resulting in a disaster, once every 20-30 years. The countries dealing with such challenges on an annual basis are more proactive and invested in risk resilience.
2. Risk perceptions change with the type of risk - A slow onset hazard like drought has a “low risk” perception than a massive earthquake which could destroy the entire town. One reason for this is that people start to adapt, day by day, to slow onset hazards - sometimes without realizing that they are being impacted by a natural hazard. For example, a farmer starts buying drought resistant crops since his income gets impacted due to reduced rainfall.
3. Risk perceptions change with gender - A woman, I’m talking about a mother or a sister, is typically more keen to invest in community level risk resilience efforts than a man. They are more emotional about the possibility of losing any member of their family. Men, on the other hand, feel like they could deal with any calamity which comes their way (this pattern seems in line with most psychological theories about how men and women think and work - men being the “doers” and women, the “planners”).
4. Risk perceptions change with previous experiences of calamity - If a Minister or a community or an individual has gone through a large disaster in his/her lifetime, he/she will be more willing to invest in risk mitigation activities. People who haven't experienced any such calamity often have a tendency to wonder, “if it hasn't happened yet, I doubt it will happen in my lifetime”.

Given the above, if you belong to an organization or are an individual looking to engage with a government or a community on DRM issues, I would recommend arming yourself with the following -

1. If engaging at the national level/with the government - (1) a national probabilistic risk assessment of natural hazards which could hit the country and its potential impact on the economy and people; (2) anecdotal evidence of natural risk impact on communities in the past; (3) economic analysis of specific impact on the country’s budget and current insurance protection of public and private assets; and finally (4) the risk mitigation measures you/your organization is recommending (infrastructure, community based, insurance related etc.), it’s quantitative and qualitative benefit to the government, and the investment (financial and human) required on the part of the government to make it happen.
2. If engaging at the community level - (1) anecdotal evidence of natural risk impact on communities in the past (particularly impact on livelihoods and children); (2) town halls and community meetings to explain the roles and responsibilities of the government, NGOs and communities before, during and after a natural hazard strikes to avoid any confusion; and finally (3) good communication strategies in the local language to explain the worst case scenario of the impact of the natural hazard and specific activities that the community can engage in at their level to mitigate that impact (identify different activities for men and women - for example, men can engage in building small scale levees in their village while women can teach the community disaster response techniques like where the rescue routes are located etc.).