| 008 |
|
130507n^^^^^^^^xx^||||^o^^^^^|||^0^eng^d |
| 245 |
00 |
|a Responding to urban disasters |h [electronic resource] |b learning from previous relief and recovery operations |y English. |
| 260 |
|
|a London, UK : |b Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) ; |a Geneva, Switzerland : |b Provention Consortium, |c 2009-07. |
| 490 |
|
|a ALNAP Lessons |y English. |
| 506 |
|
|a Refer to main document/publisher for use rights. |
| 510 |
|
|a O’Donnell, I., Smart, K., Ramalingam, B. (2009?). Responding to urban disasters: learning from previous relief and recovery operations. Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP), ProVention Consortium. |
| 520 |
3 |
|a Responding to Urban Disasters (ALNAP/ProVention) focuses on the application of DRR theory to urban contexts. It takes a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary, and interdisciplinary approach while involving all stakeholders at the community and national levels. Since 2007, more people live in urban settings than live in rural areas. More importantly, it has been found that methods that were effective at addressing disaster risks in rural areas, have not been as successful in tackling the increased risks and vulnerabilities associated with urbanization. Efforts to reformulate legislation, establish institutions for implementing DRR policy, and apply lessons learned from previous disasters to urban settings, are the central themes of this document. The text effectively covers the main phases of DRM – Risk Identification, Risk Reduction, Adverse Event Management, Recovery, and Risk Transfer and Financing. It determines that there are 8 lessons to be learned from past urban disaster experiences. These include the need to: (1) carry out a comprehensive assessment of needs, capabilities and vulnerabilities; (2) ensure the security of the population in the immediate aftermath of a disaster; (3) establish effective and efficient recovery/response communication and coordination between partners immediately after a disaster; (4) effectively use time and resources in multi-stakeholder planning sessions before and during a disaster; (5) ensure local and community engagement and participation, and the reestablishment of livelihoods; (7) reconstruction beyond the disaster; and (8) effective DRR to overcome the cycle of vulnerability. It provide examples of urban centers that have successfully implemented DRR plans, educated and trained their citizens and practitioners about implementing DRR in the urban setting, and established instruments to share or hedge economic risks associated with disaster. It also provides examples of the opposite experience and the devastating consequences. The document argues that creating cities that are resilient to disasters involves strengthening the resilience of its most vulnerable, low-income households living in high risk areas. Therefore, DRR in urban settings must out of necessity address livelihoods, strengthen civil society, promote participatory governance, and address issues related to the rights of the marginalized. |
| 520 |
0 |
|a General Disaster Risk Management |
| 533 |
|
|a Electronic reproduction. |c Florida International University, |d 2013. |f (dpSobek) |n Mode of access: World Wide Web. |n System requirements: Internet connectivity; Web browser software. |
| 650 |
1 |
|a Hazard mitigation |x Cities. |
| 700 |
1 |
|a Ramalingam, Ben. |4 ctb |
| 710 |
2 |
|a Disaster Risk Reduction Program, Florida International University (DRR/FIU), |e summary contributor. |
| 856 |
40 |
|u http://dpanther.fiu.edu/dpService/dpPurlService/purl/FI13042480/00001 |y Click here for full text |
| 992 |
04 |
|a http://dpanther.fiu.edu/sobek/content/FI/13/04/24/80/00001/FI13042480_thm.jpg |
