Integrated risk identification, analysis, and assessment: A dynamic household economy analysis methodology and example

Bob Alexander,Linda J Cox,Junko Mochizuki

doi:10.1007/s13753-013-0009-7

Bob Alexander, Linda J Cox + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-013-0009-7

Copy DOI

Abstract

Many methodologies identify, analyze, and assess static risks to quantify potential disaster losses based on past and current events. Static methodologies will not, however, capture how climate change and adaptation are rapidly affecting the natural and social systems in many areas. Local and global changes such as those associated with development investments, livelihood pressures, political stability, and demographic trends are also affecting many areas, especially in emerging economies. Risk identification, analysis, and assessment methodologies must integrate all changes dynamically so that risk reduction and development decisions can be based on future needs. After a theoretical explanation of how to integrate dynamic changes, a static Household Economy Analysis (HEA) completed for a rapidly changing area of East Timor was altered using current trends to make the analysis more dynamic. Some inherent difficulties exist with a more dynamic approach and recommendations for overcoming them are presented. Research, government, and non-government personnel interested in integrated approaches to risk reduction and development decision-making in areas subject to rapid change will find the study useful.

Highlights

The word “integrated” is used to describe many different approaches to disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA), causing confusion
Despite improvements in bridging some aspects of disaster resilience work, obstructions remain due to the separation of responsibilities between NGOs doing response and risk reduction work and governments doing development and environmental planning work; perceived budget conflicts among agencies responsible for climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and development work; and lingering misconceptions about climate change work being focused on the environment and the future and disaster work being focused on response and the past
Following the types of integration in Alexander and Mercer (2012), this article demonstrates ways to improve the use of integration in a representative risk identification, analysis, and assessment methodology so that its results are more useful for risk reduction and development decision-making

Summary

Introduction

The word “integrated” is used to describe many different approaches to disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA), causing confusion. The types of integration discussed in the literature include: bridging community risk reduction plans spatially with those of neighboring communities and upscaling with those of higher government levels (Daly et al 2010); mainstreaming risk reduction into development plans (Mitchell 2003); including all internal subcommunity vulnerable groups and involved external stakeholders (Schmuck-Widmann 2001; Cronin et al 2004; RTF-URR, UNISDR, and Kyoto University 2010; Mercer et al 2010); considering all sectors and basic societal functions (Sundnes and Birnbaum 2003; Tran and Shaw 2007); utilizing biophysical and socioeconomic approaches in multidisciplinary studies (McEntire 2004; Larsen 2006; Kelman 2010); employing quantitative and qualitative methods (Wisner et al 2004; Birkmann and Wisner 2006; Alexander, Bahnipati, and Rahman 2010); bridging across all risk factors (Louis 2007); and dynamically incorporating past, present, and future risks (Birkmann and Wisner 2006; Alexander, Bahnipati, and Rahman 2010).

Methods

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion