Hello all -

I'm about to set off to Mumbai to do some research on the integration of
risk reduction into urban livelihood strategies, and, frankly, I'd like to
ask your advice.  Specifically, I'd like to know whether any of you could
refer me to previous papers or projects which you think I should consult on
this or a supporting issue, as so far I have had only limited success
finding similar studies conducted (which I guess as a researcher I should
selfishly consider a good thing!).  Here's a brief run-down on my research
topic:

The primary assumption of the study is that regardless of how aware
individuals or communities are of the risks to disaster they face, for most
households beneath the poverty line the need to reduce their risk is far
less a priority than the need to generate income and improve access to
secure shelter and basic services such as water and sanitation, health and
education.  As such, asking them to make voluntary changes to reduce their
risk at home or at work is asking them to invest money, time, labour or
materials into someone else's goal: precious resources which most households
would prefer to invest in the realisation of their higher priorities.
Despite the short-term gain which might result from their effort, reducing
risk in this way has two possible negative effects: 1) a certain input into
(or profit from) the household's livelihood strategy is lost, which might
have longer-term consequences; and 2) the likelihood is very small that the
efforts made by those households would be sustained when the external
pressure to do so is removed, as the more urgent necessity to tend to
greater needs takes priority once again.

But just as an externally imposed change or activity is unlikely to be
sustainable if it takes away from peoples' livelihoods, so we can argue that
changes or activities are more likely to be sustainable if they CONTRIBUTE
to peoples' livelihoods.   An activity or project of any kind that requires
the active and continual participation of the 'recipient' communities is
most effective and sustainable when it is given an economic and social value
by that community to the extent that people actively include it in their
livelihood strategies.  In short, people will want to do it when their
priorities can be advanced by it.

The question now is: might the same be true with respect to risk reduction?
What if risk reduction were to find an economic and social value in the
community, to the extent that people both offered and sought out risk
reducing products or services in the local economy?

So here we come to the point.

The purpose of the research is to investigate, assess, and inform on the
ways in which external interventions (such as those undertaken by
municipalities, NGOs, or other actors)can encourage household or
community-based risk mitigation through the support and enhancement of local
livelihood strategies.

In particular, the research shall investigate the barriers and opportunities
that currently hinder or encourage people from turning risk mitigation into
a contributing element of their livelihood strategies. (To cite examples
solely for the purpose of illustration, barriers might include the limited
availability of, or access to, safer building materials for use by the
building community, or the real or perceived threat of eviction; whereas
opportunities might include a strong social safety net, or the existence of
traditional knowledge of low-cost risk mitigation techniques).

Once these details are revealed, the research will consider the ways in
which external interventions undertaken by the municipality and other actors
can help to dismantle those barriers and/or support those opportunities in a
pro-active and appropriate manner, so that the natural risk
mitigation-livelihood integration process can develop in its own way,
creating its own momentum and stimulating its own growth.  (Again, strictly
for the purposes of illustration, examples might include offering financial
incentives to producers who generate safer building materials and benefits
to builders who use them, or granting progressive tenure to squatter
communities who improve the safety of their shelters; it might mean
capitalising on the strong social safety net by providing group loans or
credit for projects which include risk reduction elements, or hiring local
specialists to train others in the usage of traditional mitigation
techniques.)

By stimulating the growth of risk reduction products and techniques as a
natural element of the local livelihood culture (as opposed to forcing them
from above), it is feasible that external interventions could, with a
reduced expenditure, increase both the effectiveness and sustainability of
risk mitigation processes in low-income communities; while low-income
communities would benefit from a safer living and working environment, and
advance the fulfilment of their own priorities at the same time.

That's pretty much it, really.

So I ask you: have similar studies been done before that you think I should
be consulting?  Are you acquainted with actual projects which have looked at
this kind of pro-active 'risk mitigation-livelihood strategy' relationship
in the past?  Beyond that, and just as importantly, do any of you have any
comments, concerns or suggestions on what I've briefly outlined above?  Any
words of caution or advice?  And, as this list-serve is all about
information sharing, would any of you like to receive details of the outcome
of this study?

Many thanks in advance for your help,

Best wishes,

Jennifer Rowell
Student
Msc. in Disaster Management
Cranfield University
United Kingdom