Disaster Risk Reduction Knowledge Of Local People In Nepal
Tuladhar et al. Geoenvironmental Disasters (2015) 2:5DOI 10.1186/s40677-014-0011-4RESEARCH ARTICLEOpen AccessDisaster risk reduction knowledge of local peoplein NepalGangalal Tuladhar1*, Ryuichi Yatabe2, Ranjan Kumar Dahal3 and Netra Prakash Bhandary2AbstractBackground: Nepal is highly vulnerable to natural disasters. A high proportion of the national GDP is lost everyyear in landslides, floods, and many other forms of disasters. A high number of human casualties and loss of publicand private property in Nepal due to natural disasters may be attributed to inadequate public awareness, lack ofdisaster preparedness, weak governance, lack of coordination among the concerned government agencies,inadequate financial resources, and inadequate technical knowledge for mitigating the natural disasters. In thiscontext, quite a few awareness and training programs for disaster risk reduction (DRR) have already been initiatedin Nepal and their impact assessments are also already documented. However, effectiveness of the variousimplemented DRR programs is not yet evaluated through an independent study.Results: The work presented in this paper explores local people’s knowledge on disaster risk reduction (DRR).Altogether, 124 local people from 18 to 74 years of age from randomly selected 19 districts of Nepal wereinterviewed focusing on various questions on disaster information, disaster knowledge, disaster readiness, disasterawareness, disaster adaptation, and disaster risk perception. The collected response data were statistically analyzedusing histogram and independent sample t-tests to examine the DRR knowledge of people. An independent t-testanalysis (Table 1) suggests that there is no statistically significant gender-based difference in disaster knowledge,disaster readiness, disaster awareness, and disaster risk perception of the surveyed people. Disaster adaptationcapacity of the local people was evaluated and more than 60 percent of the respondents were determined toadapt state of disaster in the community.Conclusions: Findings of this independent research confirmed that the DRR education initiatives implemented inNepal are not enough. The questionnaire survey results have pointed out at a few deficiencies in disseminatingDRR knowledge in Nepal. We hope these findings will encourage the line agencies working in DRR issues in Nepalto modify their programs targeted for the local communities.Keywords: Disaster knowledge; Disaster risk; Disaster risk reduction; NepalBackgroundDisaster risk is expressed in terms of potential loss oflives, deterioration of health status and livelihoods, andpotential damage to assets and services due to impact ofexisting natural hazard. Disaster risk reduction (DRR)is a systematic approach to identifying, assessing, andreducing disaster risk, and it helps minimize thevulnerability of a society or community (Maxwell andBuchanan-Smith 1994; Bendimerad F 2003; Kameda 2007;Onstada et al. 2012). It also prevents or mitigates theadverse effects of natural disasters, facilitating a sustainable* Correspondence: gangalaltuladhar@gmail.com1Himalaya Conservation Group, Kathmandu, NepalFull list of author information is available at the end of the articledevelopment process. The Second World Conference onDisaster Reduction was held in Kobe (Hyogo), Japan inJanuary 2005, which adopted the Hyogo Frameworkfor Action (HFA) 2005–2015: Building the Resilienceof Nations and Communities to Disasters. It has provideda unique opportunity to promote strategic and systematicapproach to reducing vulnerabilities and risks. HFA statesthat all countries must use knowledge, innovation, andeducation to build a culture of safety and resilience at alllevels. Moreover, it suggests that disasters can be reducedsubstantially if people are well informed and motivatedabout measures they can take to reduce vulnerability.Nepal in the Himalayan region is one of the mostdisaster prone countries in the world. Because of its 2014 Tuladhar et al.; licensee Springer. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative CommonsAttribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproductionin any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
Tuladhar et al. Geoenvironmental Disasters (2015) 2:5predominantly steep mountainous terrain in the northand low lying plains in the south, drained by steepand high current rivers originating from the Himalaya,and dominated by strong monsoonal rains, the countryis overwhelmed by various natural disasters. The commondisasters include landslides, debris flows, floods, earthquakes,snow avalanches, glacial lake outburst floods (GLOF),hailstorms, thunderbolts, cold waves, hot waves, and fire.Knowingly and unknowingly poverty drives people togo live in high risk marginal areas of mountains andriver valleys, which makes them vulnerable to disasters.On the other hand, heavy disaster losses such as duringearthquakes and tsunamis or landslides and floodunexpectedly create poverty among a large number ofpeople by destroying their houses, productive lands,other personal assets, and livelihood (Yamin et al. 2005;Takeuchi et al. 2011). Hence, poverty is both cause andconsequence of disasters in under-developed or developingcountries. Disaster risk reduction is particularly essentialfor sustaining the achievements of all kinds of developmentgoals since it provides a safety net for the hard-earneddevelopment gains of a developing country (Holloway2003; Birkmann and von Teichman 2010; Walshe andNunn 2012). In Nepal, it is a great challenge to protectinfrastructure and public and individual propertiesfrom frequent landslide, flood, and earthquake disasters.Each year hundreds of people are killed and a large amountof public and private properties are destroyed in landslide,flood, fire, and avalanche disasters. Each large-scale disasterpotentially sets the country back several years in terms ofthe development efforts. When scarce resources such astime, energy, expertise, and funding are suddenly divertedin relief and recovery work, the overall developmentactivities are delayed significantly.The disaster statistics of Nepal always motivate andjustify the urgent need of DRR works in Nepal. Therefore,Nepal has also adopted HFA and so far the Governmentof Nepal (GoN) has assigned the national mandatetowards DRR and mainstreaming the DRR in its variousdevelopment as well as education programs. In Nepal, theWorld Disaster Reduction Campaign for 2006-2007 wasinitiated and many programs such amendment in schoolcurricula for disaster risk education, community baseddisaster management in village level, disaster mitigationplans in district level etc. have been implemented.Similarly, raising awareness within school communities isthe well implemented program in the schools of Nepal.This awareness activity include training of teachers;organizing disaster quiz competitions among schoolsand local youth clubs; school contests on disaster riskreduction knowledge; campaigning for disaster safetyin communities; and turning school students into catalystsand initiators in many more community based disasterawareness activities. Results and progress of fewPage 2 of 12disaster risk reduction (DRR) initiatives taken inschools and communities of Nepal were well documented (ActionAid 2011a, b). Recently, Nepal hasalso started to include disaster risk reduction intosecondary and higher education system and curricula.This article explores the effectiveness of DRR worksin the rural communities of Nepal, and examines disasterknowledge of people, disaster preparedness, disasterawareness, disaster adaptation, and disaster risk. It alsoevaluates the effectiveness of recent DRR programsimplemented by various international nongovernmentalorganizations and national nongovernmental organization(INGOs and NGOs) in the rural communities of Nepal.Disaster risk and disaster risk reduction initiatives inNepalNatural disasters in Nepal cause a significant impact on thenational GDP particularly due to infrastructural damage, destruction of public and private properties, and loss of life.The loss of life and property in particular may be attributedto lack of public awareness, inadequate disaster preparedness, weak governance practice, lack of coordination amongthe government agencies, inadequate financial resources,and a low level of technical knowhow as well as skill in mitigating natural disasters. In recent years, however, development planners in Nepal seem to have understood theintimate link between the disasters and development strategies. In average, per day at least two people die in Nepaldue to natural disasters (MoHA Ministry of Home Affairset al. 2008). A record of loss of human lives in various typesof disasters in Nepal in the last 25 years (1986- 2011) isshown in Figure 1 (MoHA Ministry of Home Affairs 2003;DWIDP Department of Water Induced Disaster Prevention2006; MoHA Ministry of Home Affairs et al. 2009). The dataare evident how severely the country has suffered from thenatural disasters in the last two and half decades (1986-2011).In landslides and floods, the human casualty reaches as highas 288 per year. An existing data record in South Asia showsthat Nepal stands third in annual average human deaths permillion living population after Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.These disaster statistics have always motivated andjustified an urgent need of DRR works in Nepal. Therefore,Nepal is one of the 168 countries that have adopted theHFA. So far, the Government of Nepal (GoN) has assigneda national mandate towards disaster risk reduction and itsmainstreaming through various programs.Following the HFA strategies, various internationalnongovernmental organizations working in the field ofDRR have begun some ambitious programs designed toreduce people’s vulnerability to natural disasters andbuild a stronger base of community-based disastereducation. In Nepal too, especially after 2006 manyprograms have been introduced and implemented byvarious government and nongovernment agencies. A
Tuladhar et al. Geoenvironmental Disasters (2015) 2:5a8000Page 3 of 1274757000Loss of lives60005000400030002000128672771110001230Flood andLandslideFireStorm andHailEarthquakeAvalancheType of Loss of 199820012004YearsFigure 1 Loss of lives due to various disasters in Nepal between 1986 and 2005 (a), and number of deaths due to disasters in Nepalfrom 1983 to 2005 (b). Source: MoHA (2003), DWIDP (2006), MoHA et al. (2009).little change has also been made in the school-levelcurricula. Many disaster education-related programshave also been initiated (Figure 2) by both governmentaland nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) (ActionAid2011a, 2011b; UNESCO United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization and UNICEF UnitedNations Children’s Fund 2012; MercyCorp 2013) incommunity levels.Raising DRR awareness level among the communitiesis one of the well-implemented programs in Nepal. Theactivities include teachers’ trainings, disaster quizcompetitions, youth club activities on DRR knowledge,disaster safety campaigns, and disaster drills. Establishinga sense of prevention in communities is another widelypracticed DRR initiative in Nepal. For this, NGOs areinvolved in developing disaster education materials,coordinating for mainstreaming disaster risk reductionin national education system, and teaching youths,leaders, and parents the disaster risk reduction issues.Building earthquake safe communities and retrofittingexisting structures are other areas of interest for theNGOs in Nepal towards building a disaster safe society. Inthis program, the government and NGOs are involved inassessing the vulnerability of school facilities, retrofittingschool buildings, building earthquake-resistant schools,relocating schools in high disaster risk areas, and buildingnew schools in low disaster risk areas. Results andprogress of a few disaster risk reduction (DRR) initiatives
Tuladhar et al. Geoenvironmental Disasters (2015) 2:5Page 4 of 12Figure 2 Framework for disaster risk reduction initiative in education sectors and implementation plan of Government of Nepal.Figure 3 Location of 19 sample districts where randomly selected local people were interviewed.
Tuladhar et al. Geoenvironmental Disasters (2015) 2:5taken in the schools of Nepal are well documented(Shiwaku et al. 2007; ActionAid 2011a, 2011b), andDRR has already been incorporated in the educationsystem and school curricula (UNESCO United NationsEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organization andUNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund 2012).MethodsThis study was intended to explore the level of DRRknowledge in local people and to examine the effect ofDRR programs in Nepal on a number of aspects including risk perception, knowledge on available safety systemin an event of disaster, preparedness of families andcommunities, and available disaster adaptation processup until now. The study also explores effectiveness ofDRR implemented by various international nongovernmental organizations and national nongovernmentalorganization (INGOs and NGOs) in the rural communities of Nepal.Data collectionFor this study, 19 districts of Nepal (out of 75) wererandomly selected as sampling districts. During randomselection, geographical distribution, development index andDRM activities of both government and nongovernmentorganization of each district were taken into consideration.The surveyed districts are shown in Figure 3. Alsoconsidered in the survey were activities of nongovernmentalorganizations in each district, disaster history (Aryal 2012),rainfall-related disasters (Dahal and Hasegawa 2008), andrecent earthquake disaster (Dahal et al. 2012). The studywas conducted in assumptions that the local people arenow gaining DRR knowledge through various trainings,awareness campaigns, and workshop programs organizedby both national and international nongovernmentalorganization (ActionAid 2011a, b, UNESCO UnitedNations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organizationand UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund 2012).For the survey, a questionnaire sheet was preparedand a total of 124 local people (participants) from therandomly selected districts were asked to respond tothe questions. The respondents consist of 15 percentfemale and 85 percent male with an age range of 18to 74 years and mean of 38 years (SD 11.8). Only18 years (youths) or older from a variety of socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds were considered forthe interview.The questionnaire survey criteria used in this studywere adopted from the suggestions made in the availablebooks and literatures (Kuroiwa 1993; McMillan andSchumacher 1993; Andrews et al. 1998; Thorne 2000;Henning et al. 2004; Tanaka 2005; Ronan et al. 2010;Lekalakala 2011), and they were embedded togetherwithin a single survey sheet.Page 5 of 12Questions about various natural disasters wereasked to assess the level of people’s knowledge aboutthese disasters. The participants’ knowledge level wasevaluated in terms of their understanding about theoccurrence of floods, landslides, earthquakes, fires,high winds, hailstorm, drought, and extreme rainfallin five levels: (1) Never, (2) Rarely, (3) Sometimes, (4)Often, and (5) Always.In addition, the survey participants were asked twosets of questions related to their feelings over the disasterand various issues of disaster management. . Major question“What are your feelings over the disaster?” was asked in theform of 9 statements. Similarly, 18 statements were asked torespond for another set of major question “What do youthink about the following issues (18 statements) for disastermanagement”. They were asked to indicate their responsesin various statements (included in the two majorquestion sets as most probable answers) in five levels:(1) Strongly disagree, (2) Disagree, (3) Agree, (4)Strongly agree, and (5) I do not know. Later in theanalysis phase, the statements were categorized intofive groups to explore knowledge of respondents onDRR as (i) Disaster-related knowledge, (ii) Disasterpreparedness and readiness, (iiii) Disaster adaptation,(iv) Disaster awareness, (v) Disaster risk perception. A summary of the statements incorporated in the questionnairesurvey is as follows.Disaster-related knowledge I know when a disaster will occur I know disasters cannot be prevented I have participated in disaster risk education trainingor workshopDisaster preparedness and readiness I think to come across a disaster and remain alivedepends on our luck I know importance of disseminating experiences orknowledge of disaster I know government will provide enoughfacilities after disaster and we will not faceany problem I am confident for reconstruction activities fromgovernment after disaster I know the importance of talking about disasters withneighbours, friends and colleagues I used to listen experts or DRR leaders who work ordo activities for disaster managementDisaster adaptation I am aware of the shelter areas and open space incase of a disaster I have information about which government officeneeds to be contacted after the disaster
Tuladhar et al. Geoenvironmental Disasters (2015) 2:5 I have knowledge about disaster prone area I am getting enough information from INGO/NGOabout disaster adaptation I have knowledge about an evacuation area during adisaster I know the important of community activities fordisasters risk reduction I know the life evacuation system in my localityDisaster awareness I used to participate in voluntary activities fordisaster awareness campaigns I am aware of retrofitting of buildings I used to prepare emergency bag for disasters I have a good relationship with my neighbours andcommunity I think repair of road blockage and transportationbreak are important I give priority to disaster awareness in local, regionaland national level I know recovery after disaster is a crucial workDisaster risk perception I am very sure that large-scale disasters will certainlyoccur in next 10 years My locality is safe from all kinds of disasters I think my building is well designed and willwithstand an earthquake event I am sure that my sleeping space is secure duringand after disasterSurvey procedureLocal representatives of the major political parties inNepal, who have basic knowledge of disasters, wereselected as enumerators, as they usually have a closeacquaintance and a strong convincing relation withthe local people. The enumerators were asked to selectsurvey participants with basic education (that is, at leasthigh school graduates) who could understand and answerthe questions well. The survey was conducted more inpresence of the enumerators themselves in an interviewstyle for the clarity of the questions as well as answers ofthe respondents. In average, total time required forcompleting one survey was 20–30 minutes.Method of analysisTo examine overall DRR knowledge of local people,histogram analysis, bivariate correlations and independentsample t-tests was conducted. Basically, the descriptiveanalyses helped to examine the relationship betweendisaster risk reduction initiatives of government of Nepaland the local people’s knowledge on DRR. Five key DRRissues were considered in our analysis: disaster knowledge,disaster readiness, disaster awareness, disaster adaptation,Page 6 of 12and disaster risk perception. Responses in these key issueswere also evaluated with histogram analyses. A series ofindependent sample t-tests were also conducted toexamine the effects of gender and disaster events. For thispurpose, the five responses (Strongly disagree, Disagree,Agree, Strongly agree, and I do not know) were rephrased.For example, if a respondent responded strongly agree forall five DRR issues, it was considered that he/she wellunderstood of the disaster knowledge, he/she was veryready to tackle the state of disaster, he/she is well awarefor disaster risks, he/she can well adapt state of disasterand he/she is well perceived disaster risk. Similarly,if a respondent responded strongly disagree for allfive DRR issues; it was considered that he/she hasno idea of the disaster knowledge, disaster readiness,disaster awareness, disaster adaptation and disasterrisk perception.ResultsAs mentioned in methodology, basically three kinds ofanalyses have been done to explore overall DRRknowledge of local people in Nepal. The effects ofgender and disaster events were evaluated with independent sample t-tests and bivariate correlations. People’sknowledge on DRR issues in Nepal was evaluated withhistogram analyses. Disaster insecurity of local people wasalso evaluated from histogram plot. Results of analysis aregiven in the following headings.Gender effects on disaster risk reduction issuesDemographic factors always have some relationshipwith DRR process in a community. To explore this issue,preliminary analysis has been carried out on the basis ofgender and age groups of the local people.An independent t-test analysis (Table 1) suggeststhat there is no statistically significant gender-baseddifference in disaster knowledge, disaster readiness,disaster awareness, and disaster risk perception of thesurveyed people, which can be understood from significance of t-test values greater than 0.05 (two-tailed)for almost all key disaster issues. Only for the case ofawareness, the male participants were found moreconfused than the female, as indicated by less than0.05 significance of t-test result.Likewise, when the people were asked about the use ofmedia as a source of disaster information, it was found thatthe number of females using national television (that is,Nepal Television) is greater, but the males were found toprefer FM radios to learn about and get disaster information.Disaster risk reduction issues and People’s responseThe DRR knowledge of local people was analyzedwith people’s response on five key DRR issues (disaster
Tuladhar et al. Geoenvironmental Disasters (2015) 2:5Page 7 of 12Table 1 Statistical analysis of key disaster risk reductionissuesKey DRR IssuesFemaleMaleMean SDMean SDt(124)Sig.local level are in satisfactory level, and the people are ratherpositive about gaining disaster-related knowledge.Disaster preparedness and readiness behaviour7.52-0.500.6232.29 13.21 29.57 11.162.710.69Six main questions were asked to explore people’s readinessbehaviour towards the disasters. Out of these questions,there were positive responses for five questions andnegative responses for two questions. More than 80percent respondents do not think that the governmenthas made enough preparations for DRR (Figure 5). Theyalso do not agree that the government provides enoughrelief after a disaster. They also comment that there is alack of governmental mechanism to support them after adisaster. About 25 percent respondents still believe thatdisaster and loss have direct link with their fate, whileabout 70 percent of the respondents are not convincedthat governmental or nongovernmental institutions willinitiate the post-disaster reconstruction activities.However, the respondents were found to be well motivatedto talk about the disasters with their friends, colleagues,and neighbors. An overall impression about the readinessbehavior of the people suggested that nearly 25 percent ofthe local people are still confused and are not readyto confront the disasters.Adaptation: Adapted37.57 14.25 43.577.63-6.000.35Disaster adaptationAdaptations: Notadapted14.297.87 11.143.763.140.365.352.361.290.574.551 Knowledge: Wellunderstood42.33 10.50 90.15Knowledge: Not clear16.005.00 11.674.621.100.33Knowledge: -1.410.2324.86 15.53 25.14 17.35-0.030.97Knowledge: No idea2 Readiness: Very ready8.19 44.33Readiness: Ready39.14 15.74 32.57 16.490.760.46Readiness: Not ready24.14 21.61 21.29 11.610.310.76Readiness: Confusing7.714.42 12.29 10.29-1.080.30Readiness: No idea4.437.68-1.130.283 Awareness: Well aware8.575.9421.71 13.56 21.71 11.760.001.00Awareness: Aware42.00 10.50 42.43-0.090.93Awareness: Not aware22.71 10.34 16.14Awareness: ConfusingAwareness: No idea4 Adaptation: WelladaptedAdaptation: ConfusingAdaptation: No idea5 Perception: WellperceivedPerception: 1.80-2.850.014.93 13.144.276.297.44 5-0.1540.883Perception: Notperceived44.820.328.818.01.180.283Perception: 0.2710.796Perception: No ideaknowledge, disaster readiness, disaster awareness, disasteradaptation and disaster risk perception) considered in thisresearch. Results for each issue are described in followingsub-headings.Disaster-related knowledgeThree main questions were asked to explore the levelof disaster-related knowledge. More than 30 percentof the respondents were found to be familiar with thedisaster-related facts (Figure 4). About 80 percent of themwere found to agree with the importance of disaster riskrelated trainings for them. This result indicates that theawareness campaigns of both governmental and nongovernmental organizations related to disaster knowledge inThe disaster adaptation capacity in the local people ofNepal was evaluated through seven main questions(Figure 6). In general, more than 60 percent of therespondents were determined to adapt state of disaster inthe community. At present, although DRR programs andcampaigns are being implemented and accomplished byvarious INGOs and NGOs, nearly 50 percent of therespondents was found negative on their activities,and respondents give little importance to the role ofINGOs/NGOs in disaster information dissemination.Disaster awarenessSeven statements were asked to evaluate respondent’sdisaster awareness level (Figure 7). Only less than 20percent of them were confused with the awareness activities for disaster risk in their community. This is a positive result for the governmental or nongovernmentalinstitutions that are working for DRR issues in the community level. However, nearly 20 percent of respondentsdo not know or do not agree with the concept of disaster emergency bag. They emphasized that the concept ofemergency bag is not practical for them.Disaster risk perceptionFour main questions were asked to the respondents soas to evaluate the risk perception. More than 75 percentof the respondents were found to be unaware of large-scaledisasters in their communities (Figure 8) despite the fact
Tuladhar et al. Geoenvironmental Disasters (2015) 2:5Page 8 of 12Figure 4 Evaluation of disaster-related knowledge in local people of Nepal.that the annual disaster record of Nepal (see Figure 1)roughly indicates that major disasters occur in about every10 years.Disaster insecurityPeople were asked about the level of insecurity they havefrom eight kinds of common natural disasters in Nepal.They responded in five levels of insecurity from thedisasters. The responses clearly demonstrate their disasterrisk perception. Most of the respondents feel that they areinsecure from all kinds of disasters (Figure 9), but themaximum insecurity is associated with earthquake, storm,hail, drought, and extreme rainfall. Nearly 40 percent ofFigure 5 Readiness behaviour of people for disaster risk reduction.the respondents feel that landslides may not be a problemfor them, which in fact is a highly underestimated response. As most of the respondents are from mountainousareas, they must have a sound knowledge of landslideprocesses and associated disasters in their area. In case offloods also, the respondents were found to have a similaropinion. This clearly indicates that the DRR issues areeither not being well protruded or are focused more onearthquake issues in the community level. Although manypeople are well aware disaster awareness programs, stillone third of the respondents were worried for all kind ofdisasters and could not recognize major disaster problemin his/her area.
Percentage of respondersTuladhar et al. Geoenvironmental Disasters (2015) 2:5Page 9 of 1260%50%40%30%20%10%0%I don't e of the shelter areas and open space in case of a disasterInformation about which government office needs to be contacted after the disasterKnowledge about disaster prone areaGetting enough information from INGO/NGO about disaster adaptationKnowledge about an evacuation area during a disasterCommunity activities for disastersLife in state of evacuation after the disasterFigure 6 Response of the people to the various disaster adaptation systems in the community.DiscussionThis study has helped to understand the status andimportance of DRR knowledge dissemination process inrural communities of Nepal. Although the line agencies(that, governmental and nongovernmental institutionsthat have been involved in DRR activities in variouscommunities of Nepal) claim that DRR concept anddisaster education are now already functioning in thelocal communities and all local people have beengaining DRR knowledge through awareness campaigns,trainings, meetings, and so on, the ground reality indicatesthat the situation is still incoherent. In this work, people’sknowledge in five key DRR issues was explored through aquestionnaire survey on at least high school graduates,but the findings are not very encouraging. For example,one of findings indicates that many people are stillobscured on awareness activities for disaster riskmanagement in community. A few satisfactory resultswere obtained particularly concerning the status ofpeople’s knowledge in disaster. Although the level ofknowledge of both male and female respondents inDRR issues is not different, many males were foundto be still confused abou
Keywords: Disaster knowledge; Disaster risk; Disaster risk reduction; Nepal Background Disaster risk is expressed in terms of potential loss of lives, deterioration of health status and livelihoods, and potential damage to assets and services due to impact of existing natural hazard. Disaster risk reduction (DRR) is a systematic approach to .
6 DISASTER RISK REDUCTION FOR COMMUNITY RESILIENCE: A SYNTHESIS OF LESSONS FROM MORE THAN A DECADE OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION PROGRAMMING 5 DISASTER RISK REDUCTION FOR COMMUNITY RESILIENCE: A SYNTHESIS OF LESSONS FROM MORE THAN A DECADE OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION PROGRAMMING Coping capacity can be significantly improved if vulnerable people can anticipate an event which allows
disaster risk reduction and management activities, monitoring, training, and operation of a multi-hazard early warning system. 17.1.2 Disaster Risk Reduction and Management at the National Level (1) The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework . Pursuant to RA No. 10121, the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework
Strategy for Disaster Reduction. An alignment of the terminology used in disaster risk reduction in Africa with the internationally acceptable concepts is logical. 2.1 Disaster Although the focus of disaster reduction is not on any actual disaster event itself, disaster remains the main focus. Thus our efforts must be geared towards the
Disaster Risk Reduction is an organization that changed its name from International Strategy for Disaster Reduction in May 2019. Fig.1 The opening ceremony at the 3rd UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The 3rd UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction）
National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP) 2011-2028. Asian Disaster Preparedness Center. (2001). Community Based Disaster Management Course Paricipants Workbook , Partnership for Disaster Reduction South East Asia Program Bautista, Rostum J, et.al. (2011). "National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (NDRRM) Planning
NATIONAL DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT ACT Passed in 2015 reflect new thinking and relating to disaster risk reduction in context of sustainable national development Intended to provide the legal framework upon which disaster risk reduction and disaster response operations OFFICE OF DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
namely Disaster and its classification, Disaster risk and Disaster Risk Reduction, Mainstreaming gender for Disaster Risk Reduction. IV. DISASTER AND ITS CLASSIFICATION Disaster is a phenomenon which can identify from the history of human civilization and it can be simply defined as an event
continue to meet with strategy groups and conduct shared reading and guided reading groups with a focus on print strategies and fluency based on students [ needs. **Although the unit details 22 sessions, this unit could easily utilize 6 weeks of instruction within the reading workshop.
