Risk」カテゴリーアーカイブ

Day_167: Imagine from Disaster Damage Statistics

NIED-DIL mail magazine: 6
Imagine from disaster damage statistics
Contribution day and time: 2013/08/19

There is an index called the World Risk Index. The world risk report ranks Bangladesh as one of the high-risk countries in the world in 2019.

Indonesia and Haiti were easy to imagine, linked to the damages caused by recent earthquakes. Previously, there was an opportunity to learn from a land environment perspective about the past major disasters that struck Bangladesh, especially the large-scale cyclone disasters in 1970 and 1991. During a study session at the institution, I leaned the reported number of the casualties caused by the disasters was 500,000 and 140,000 people each. I was surprised to see the large numbers, but I was wondering why these numbers are so rough. When I looked at the table showing the breakdown numbers, I felt, “Oh!”

Building damage, human suffering, and livestock damage are listed. For example, the cyclone disaster in 1991 resulted in 1,630,543 house damage, 140,000 human suffering (dead or missing), and 584,471 livestock damage.

Yes, human suffering seemed to be a rough figure, while house damage and livestock damage were written down to one digit. And when we looked at what kind of country Bangladesh was like such as caste, religion, and livestock.

The background of the numbers, such as meaning, etc., has come into view. Regarding the number of dead and missing people in 1970, there are no accurate figures, and reports from 200,000 to 550,000 people have been reported in various fields.

Day_117 : Bangladesh-Disasters, Lands, and Statistics (2)

When there is a disaster, numbers about the damage come out, but I thought it was a very important viewpoint to think about where the numbers came out and what you can imagine from those numbers.

By the way, the web site is
https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/WorldRiskReport-2019_Online_english.pdf
Issued July 5, 2010 No. 6

Related Books and Info. for Further Understanding

sponsored link

Day_163: PAR model : Hazard and Vulnerability (3)

As discussed on Day 147, now we are investing the social vulnerability index of the district, sub-district, and village levels in Ayutthaya. To calculate the social vulnerability index, exposure, susceptibility, and capacity data are examined. Notably, the district level of the index is figured out, as shown in Figure 1, using principal component analysis.

(Please enlarge the screen to see the figure well. Darker blue means more vulnerable. The detailed factors of PCA will be explained later. )

Figure 1: Social Vulnerability Index Industrial Complex Area(SVI-ICA) Ref. 1)

Day_147: PAR model : Hazard and Vulnerability

As mentioned above, the district level of the social vulnerability index can be figured out by statistical data. However, sub-district and village levels data are challenging to collect. We also need to understand the capacity is a factor that includes not only hard but also soft countermeasures against natural disasters, as discussed before. Especially, capacity-soft is not stable by time with circumstances and could be changing from time to time. The stats data is not enough to indicate their actual capacities.

Based on the above fact, the capacity assessment is considered to fill the gaps. The capacity assessment method was based on the FDPI project experience.

The population of the target areas is indicated below:

Table 1:  The Population of the Tambons (Source: registration office 2019)

Below is the category (indicators) to measure the capacity.

Table 2: Indicators and Sub-Indicators for Capacity Assessment

The results are as indicated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Four Sub-District Capacity Assessment 

The findings show the western side and eastern side have a big gap, as you can see in Figure 2.

Figure 3 explains the education and training part is much different among the four target sub-district. The results mean we can monitor and evaluate their progress after we provide education, training, system, or so on there.

Figure 3: Capacity Assessment Analyses

For example, each sub-indicators are examined as follows:

Figure 4: Information and Education Sub-Indicators Gaps 

The analyses (the detailed sub-indicators from IE1 to IE11) will be explained later.

Related Book and Info.

At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters

*This is the baseline research for the SATREPS project.

Day_159: PAR model : Hazard and Vulnerability (2)

Day_147: PAR model : Hazard and Vulnerability

As discussed on Day 147, now we are investing the social vulnerability index of the district, sub-district, and village levels in Ayutthaya. To calculate the social vulnerability index, exposure, susceptibility, and capacity data are examined. Especially, the district level of the index is figured out as shown in Figure 1 using principal component analysis.

Figure 1: Social Vulnerability Index Industrial Complex Area(SVI-ICA) Ref. 1)

The district level of the social vulnerability index can be figured out by statistical data. However, sub-district and village level data should be difficult to collect such data. Based on the fact, the capacity assessment is firstly conducted to the target four sub-districts as indicated in Figure 2. The capacity assessment method was based on the FDPI project experience.

Figure 2: Four Sub-District Capacity Assessment 

The findings say the western side and eastern side have a big gap as you can see in Figure 2.

Figure 3 indicates the education and training part is much different among the four target sub-district. This means we can monitor and evaluate their progress after we provide education, training, system, or so on there.

Figure 3: Capacity Assessment Analyses

The detailed examination will be explained later.

*Exposure, Susceptibility, and Capacity data list will be shown later. The theoretical frame is base on the PAR model. The below book can be referred.


At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters

**This is the baseline research for the SATREPS project.

Ref. 1) Tadashi Nakasu, Ruttiya Bula-or, Sutee Anatsuksomsti, Korrakot Positlimpakul (2019)Social Vulnerability Changes and Sustainable Development in the Flooded Industrial Complex Area The 2nd multidisciplinary International Conference on Humanities (ICH 2019) “Innovation and Transformation in Humanities for a Sustainable Tomorrow.” 30-31 October 2019, School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

Day_147: PAR model : Hazard and Vulnerability

Disaster researchers often refer to the PAR (Press and Release) model to understand the risk.
The PAR model was described in the book “At Risk”. This book is a kind of bible for disaster researchers. Disaster Risk is described as an overlapped area between Hazard and Vulnerability.


The Disaster risk should also consider “Exposure” and “Capacity”. The capacity has mainly two parts, Hard and Soft. In short, Capacity Hard (CH) means tangible factors and  Capacity Soft(CS) means intangible ones. For instance, infrastructure is CH and education is CS. The Disaster risk usually can be identified by the following picture. Figure 1 indicates the above.


Figure 1  Disaster Risk

Using the below equation, disaster risk would be identified.

Disaster Risk = H*E*V/ (CH+CS)

Each factor such as E (Exposure) could be identified by mainly statistic data in the target area.
To do this, the indices can be established. The data to contribute each factor should be carefully examined.

Figure 2 is the national level Index Image of Thailand.


Figure 2 Social Vulnerability

To be continued…..

Day_70 :災害対応と文化 [Japanese]

防災科学技術研究所 自然災害情報室のメールマガジン*第7号の記事を転載致します。
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
先日、文化と災害対応について、面白い論文を見つけました。それは、オハイオ大学のロバート・ロス氏による論考です。1970年のかなり古い研究ですが、大変興味深く感じました。ロス氏は、自然災害の対応に影響を与える要因として地域の、宗教、技術、そして、特に自然に対する文化的価値観をあげ、それらが、その国々の制度のより中央集権型か地方分権型かという部分と相互作用するとしています。具体的には、東アジア、西欧、ラテンの国々の比較を行っています。
 例えば、東アジアの国々の災害対応は、西欧、ラテンアメリカに比べて宗教や技術の部分は相対的に低く、自然と調和することに重きをおく文化的価値観が大きく作用する。また中央集権的であまり分権化していないことも影響するとしています。一方、西欧の国々の災害対応は、ラテンアメリカや東アジアに比べて宗教的影響、技術は高く、自然を征服するという文化的価値観が働いているとし、それらが、地方分権型システムに作用するとしています。最後に、ラテンアメリカの国々の災害対応は、宗教的影響及び技術は中間とし、自然に対しては服従する文化的価値観が働くとし、比較的中央集権型システムと相互作用するとしています。
 かなり大雑把な分析で、現在に当てはまらないと思われる部分も多くありますが、解釈の仕方によっては、いろいろと考えるヒントを与えてくれます。例えば、2005年に起こったハリケーン・カトリーナ災害では、政府の対応が、うまくいかなかったと批判されていますが逆に、そのことが、コミュニティの災害対応の差を際立たせた側面があるようです。特に、ニューオリンズのアジア系コミュニティ、ラテンアメリカ系コミュニティ、そして西欧系コミュニティの災害前後の災害対応の違いがはっきりしたといわれています。
 コミュニティ単位で、ロス氏の考察を当てはめて考えると興味深いものがあります。
*防災科学技術研究所 自然災害情報室メールマガジン
自然災害情報室