Life on the Edge: Urban Social Vulnerability and Decentralized, Citizen-Based Disaster Risk Reduction in Four Large Cities of the Pacific Rim

Back to results
Author(s)
Wisner, B. and Uitto, J.
Publication language
English
Pages
17pp
Date published
01 Jan 2009
Publisher
Facing Global Environmental Change, Vol. 4
Type
Articles
Keywords
Capacity development, Disaster preparedness, resilience and risk reduction, Disaster risk reduction, Urban
Countries
Japan, Mexico, Philippines, United States of America

 

Rapid urbanization and the growth of megacities have
for the first time in history resulted in a predominantly
urban world. Such an urban explosion, most of
which has been in the less developed countries, has
increased human exposure to natural and anthropogenic
hazards. In particular, the 1990’s the world witnessed
an exponential growth in disasters. There were
700 large-scale disasters in 1999 alone, which resulted
in the death of approximately 100,000 people and
caused economic losses in excess of US $ 100 billion.
This figure reflects an annual 10 percent increase in
losses throughout the decade. In 2003 weather related
disasters alone cost insurers $ 60 billion (UNEP
2003).
In 1996 the United Nations University (UNU)
launched an international comparative study of the social
geography of urban disaster vulnerability. Research
on factors contributing to urban social vulnerability
was carried out with the aim of incorporating
social vulnerability in urban disaster risk management.
Collaborative case studies were undertaken in six
megacities, four of which are located in the Pacific Basin:
Tokyo, Los Angeles, Manila and Mexico City.2
During the initial phase, citizens’ participation and
strong links between municipal authorities and nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) working with
vulnerable groups were identified as critical factors
for reducing vulnerability. The extent of these partnerships
and whether vulnerability had been included as
a planning variable varied considerably amongst the
municipalities studied. This chapter attempts to provide
an explanation for that variability and also tries
to draw out implications for policy and practice.