Gupta, A. and Shah, H., 1998. The Strategy Effectiveness Chart: a Tool for
Evaluating Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Strategies. Applied Geography,
18(1): 55-67 illustrates a nice methodological framework for the measuring
the degree to which
earthquake mitigation measures are successful. I see no reason why the
methodology cannot be extended to include other types of
hazards.
Tarek
==========================================================
T A R E K R A S H E D, Ph.D.
==========================================================
Assistant Professor of Geographic Information Science and Associate
Director,
Center for Spatial Analysis: http://www.csa.ou.edu/
Department of Geography, University of Oklahoma
100 E. Boyd Street, Sarkeys Energy Center 680, Norman, OK 73019, USA
Phone: (405) 325-5104, Fax: (405) 325-6090
Email: [log in to unmask], Webpage: http://geography.ou.edu/people/rashed.html
==========================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Twigg" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:40 AM
Subject: 'MEASURING MITIGATION': A METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW - AND A REQUEST FOR
ASSISTANCE
> Although those working on natural disaster reduction believe that disaster
> mitigation 'pays' - in the broadest sense of the word - there is
> surprisingly little hard evidence in support of this statement. This is a
> critical gap in risk management. Many agencies remain reluctant to commit
> significant funds to risk reduction until it can be proved that it is a
> cost-effective use of resources.
>
> Planning and appraisal methods used in development and mitigation projects
> tend to by-pass the question. For example, although structural mitigation
> measures usually undergo cost-benefit (CBA) and related analysis, the
costs
> and benefits of incorporating a wider range of mitigation features into
> development projects more generally are often ignored. Similarly,
> environmental impact assessment (EIA) guidelines used in development
> projects do not require assessment of the potential impact of natural
> hazards on a project, and so do not identify possible mitigation needs
that
> should be addressed.
>
> Monitoring and evaluation of risk reduction initiatives tends to be short-
> term, tied to project cycles. It focuses on the initiatives' outputs (e.g.
> numbers trained in disaster planning, area sown with drought-resistant
> seeds), rather than their impact (e.g. the extent to which lives, assets
> and livelihoods are better protected during disasters).
>
> A new project managed by the ProVention Consortium
> (http://www.proventionconsortium.org/) seeks to address these problems by
> developing guidelines on how project appraisal methodologies can be
adapted
> to consider risks from natural hazards, and on appropriate ways of
> monitoring the impact of risk reduction.
>
> The first stage of the project is a review of existing methodologies and
> practices across a range of agencies, geographical locations, scales of
> operation and development/disaster contexts. It comprises desk research,
> interviews and surveys.
>
> This work is being carried out by two independent researchers, who would
> welcome any help that development and disaster management agencies can
> give. They are particularly keen to obtain:
> (1) copies of project planning and evaluation methodologies
> (2) 'good practice' examples of hazard risk appraisal in project
> planning
> (3) 'good practice' examples of evaluations of the impact of risk
> reduction measures
>
> If you can provide such material, know where it might be found, or have
> other ideas about information that might benefit the project, please
> contact the research team: Charlotte Benson ([log in to unmask]) or John
> Twigg ([log in to unmask]).
>
>
|