92168 UNDERSTANDING RISK IN AN EVOLVING WORLD A Policy Note GLOBAL FACILITY FOR DISASTER REDUCTION AND RECOVERY © 2014 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / International Development Association or The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. 01 02 FOREWORD In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, cities reduce our risks and lessen the tragic price paid by across the world experienced catastrophic fire- citizens, cities, and governments in the aftermath related disasters. In this brief period, Boston, of disasters. Such results are evident today: when Chicago, San Francisco, Tokyo, Baltimore, Houston, Cyclone Phailin made landfall in Odisha late Atlanta, Toronto, and Seattle all burned completely last year, the region experienced a 99.6 percent to the ground. Then, after enough was lost, cities reduction in fatalities from the comparably intense stopped burning. Why? 1999 Odisha cyclone, in large part due to targeted interventions to lower disaster risk. Governments, the private sector, and citizens responded in concert after these great fires Underpinning successes like these is accurate to make the following changes: (a) building and actionable risk information. This policy note codes were improved and rigorously enforced; highlights recommendations that will help ensure (b) land-use planning focused on expansion of that risk information developed in the future roadways and public spaces; (c) infrastructure to enables decision makers to better reduce existing support emergency services was enhanced and risks and avoid the creation of new risks. These maintained; (d) emergency service providers were recommendations build on the collective experience professionalized, with robust training; (e) insurance of innovative and influential technical specialists, rewarded those with fire-resilient practices; and (f) institutions, and governments around the world that information was put in the hands of citizens so they have made significant progress toward improving could manage their own fire risk. As a result of these the quality, transparency, and accessibility of changes, catastrophic urban fires were consigned risk information. to history. While it is unfortunate that such catastrophes had In this effort, we still have far to go—but if to occur before meaningful action was taken, the achievements over the next 10 years match the scale larger story shows that with the right information of achievements in the last decade, we will be well at the right time and in the right hands, we can on our way toward improved resilience. Francis Ghesquiere Head, GFDRR Secretariat, Manager DRM Practice Group, The World Bank ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This policy note was prepared by a team led by Amsterdam), Arno Bouwman (PBL Netherlands Alanna Simpson and consisting of Rick Murnane, Environmental Assessment Agency), Rens van Keiko Saito, Emma Phillips, Robert Reid, and Beek, Marc F. P. Bierkens (Utrecht University), Anne Himmelfarb. The note was founded on the Willem Ligtvoet (PBL Netherlands Environmental knowledge, expertise, and experience of more than Assessment Agency), and Hessel C. Winsemius 50 institutions around the world, captured in the (Deltares) for the Dhaka case study. We also accompanying publication, Understanding Risk: The gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the Evolution of Disaster Risk Assessment. Global Earthquake Model foundation and Swarna Kazi (World Bank). The development of the policy note benefited greatly from discussions with and advice received The authors would like to thank Pete Thomas from Abigail Baca, Jack Campbell, Vivien Deparday, (Willis Group) for introducing us to the history of Marc Forni, Ben Fox, Rashmin Gunasekera, Oscar urban fires, which inspires us to see disaster risks as Ishizawa, Daniel Kull, James Newman, Fernando an equally solvable problem. Ramirez, Robert Soden, Annegien Tijssen, Joaquin The team greatly appreciates the support and Toro, and Jon Walton. guidance received from Francis Ghesquiere, Zoubida For their contributions, ideas, and feedback, special Allaoua, Rachel Kyte, James Close, and Ede Jorge thanks are due to Kate Stillwell (Global Earthquake Ijjasz-Vasquez. Model), Kamal Kishore (UN Development Programme), Andrew Jones (Geoscience Australia), Nicola Ranger (UK Department for International Development), and the UNISDR. The authors gratefully acknowledge the following contributors to the case studies featured in this policy note: Fernando Ramírez-Cortés, Oscar A. Ishizawa, Juan Carlos Lam, and Niels B. Holm- Nielsen (World Bank) for the case study on Costa Rican water and sanitation systems; the Indonesian National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB), World Bank, GFDRR, and Australian government teams for the InaSAFE case study; Jason Brown (Australia-Indonesia Facility for Disaster Reduction) and Jonathan Griffin (Geoscience Australia) for the Padang case study; David Lallemant, Steven Wong, and Anne Kiremidjian (Stanford University) for the Kathmandu case study; and Philip J. Ward, Brenden Jongman, Jeroen C. J. H. Aerts (VU University 03 04 Introduction The foundation for DRM is understanding the essentially the same levers that we can apply today hazards, and the exposure and vulnerability to consigning natural disasters to history. Disaster of people and assets to those hazards. By risk assessments can assist us by uncovering these quantifying the risks and anticipating the policy levers and helping to build a compelling case potential impacts of hazards, governments, for action. communities, and individuals can make informed prevention decisions. Such Risk assessments provide an opportunity before a information can be used to set priorities for disaster to determine the likely deaths, damages, development and adaptation strategies, and losses (direct and indirect) that will result sector plans, programs, projects, and budgets. from a hazard event, and to highlight which actions will be most effective in reducing the impacts —World Bank, The Sendai Report: Managing Disaster Risks on individuals, communities, and governments. for a Resilient Future (2012) This ability to model disaster loss and to provide Economic losses from disasters triggered by natural robust analysis of the costs and benefits of risk events are rising—from $50 billion each year in the preparedness, reduction, and avoidance has 1980s, to just under $200 billion each year in the last made disaster risk assessments a powerful tool in decade (World Bank and GFDRR 2013). In addition, disaster risk management (DRM). As a result, the the economic losses sustained by lower- and middle- number of risk assessments being undertaken is income countries alone over the last 30 years are growing, innovation has flourished, and a vast array equivalent to a third of all development assistance of approaches, experiences, and lessons learned in the same time period, offsetting the tremendous now exists. development efforts of governments, multilateral organizations, and other actors. As the Hyogo Framework for Action period ends against a backdrop of challenging disaster risk In the context of rapidly growing disaster losses trends, and consultations toward a post-2015 and high-profile catastrophic disasters, it is often framework move forward, it is important to difficult to imagine reducing the impact from hazard reflect on the role of disaster risk assessments events. But societies have successfully overcome in achieving disaster and climate resilience, and similar challenges in the past. For centuries, urban on the contributions risk assessments have made fires were a global concern for the public, private, over the last 10 years. This policy note is founded and finance sectors, as well as for the communities on, and framed by, the accompanying publication directly affected. Urban fires devastated Rome in Understanding Risk in an Evolving World: Emerging 64 CE, London in 1666, Moscow in 1812, Chicago Best Practices in Natural Disaster Risk Assessment, in 1871, and Boston in 1872; the 1906 San Francisco which features case studies that span 40 countries fire destroyed nearly 95 percent of the city, and the and that showcase emerging best practices, Tokyo fire of 1923 killed over 40,000 people. Yet demonstrate how risk assessments are being used we do not see catastrophic urban fires any more, to inform DRM and broader development, and and this hazard has largely been consigned to highlight lessons learned through these efforts. history. The reasons—implementation of modern Taken as a group, these case studies demonstrate building codes, land-use planning, establishment the need to continue investment in accurate risk and expansion of emergency services, greater citizen information and suggest recommendations for the responsibility, and insurance regulations—are future of risk assessment. Risk Information as the Basis for DRM Decision Making A risk assessment represents the start and not infrequent but high-impact events—may not be the conclusion of a DRM process. A disaster risk known at all, DRM may be given a low priority. But assessment provides a foundation for long-term risk assessment is an essential tool for conducting engagement and investment focused on reducing risk identification activities, which then support existing risk and avoiding the creation of new risk. virtually all subsequent DRM actions that fall under Proactive responses to new risk information include the four areas described below—risk reduction, retrofitting buildings to withstand the assessed preparedness, financial protection, and resilient hazard levels, developing new land-use planning reconstruction. guidelines, designing financial protection measures, and equipping and training emergency responders. Appropriate communication of robust risk Risk information provides a critical foundation information at the right time can raise awareness for managing disaster risk across a wide range of and trigger action to reduce risk. However, sectors. Risk information is beneficial for a range of communicating disaster risk in a way that sectors: In the insurance sector, the quantification triggers action requires an understanding of the of disaster risk is essential, given that the solvency development and social processes that underlie capital of most non-life insurance companies is and drive the generation of risk. For example, strongly influenced by their exposure to natural the decision of an individual or government to catastrophe risk. In the infrastructure sector, construct a building that is resilient to seismic quantifying the potential hazard expected in the events will result from a complex interplay between lifetime of a building, bridge, or critical facility awareness of, belief in, and acceptance of the ensures resilient construction, and drives the creation and modification of building codes. In the potential risks; the financial and technical capacity land-use and urban planning sectors, robust analysis to design and construct the resilient structure; and of flood risk likewise drives investment in flood the appropriate (enforced) legal, institutional, and protection and possibly effects changes in insurance regulatory framework (e.g., enforcement of building as well. At the community level, an understanding codes). Similarly, land scarcity in rapidly developing of hazard events—whether from living memory or urban environments forces uncomfortable trade- oral and written histories—can inform and influence offs between the urgent need of today, such as the decisions on preparedness, the location of important need to build on vacant land near employment and facilities, and life-saving evacuation procedures. educational opportunities, and the potential risk of Managing disaster risk is just one of myriad tomorrow, such as a 1-in-20-year flood event. challenges faced by governments, communities, and individuals, and it is one that may be easy Drawing from the DRM framework proposed in the to neglect. Because the actual cost of historical Sendai report (World Bank 2012), we highlight the disasters is not widely known, and the potential role of risk information as the foundation for four cost and impacts of future disasters—including key areas of DRM decision making. 05 06 1. Risk reduction: Informing policies, investments, and preparedness drills. Providing a measure of the structural and nonstructural measures intended to impact of different hazard events—the potential reduce risk. Hazard and risk information may number of damaged buildings, fatalities and be used to inform a broad range of activities to injuries, secondary hazards—makes it possible reduce disaster risk, from improving building to establish detailed and realistic plans for better codes and designing risk reduction measures response to disasters, which can ultimately (such as flood and storm surge protection), to reduce any event’s severity. carrying out macro-level assessments of the risks 3. Financial protection: Developing financial to different types of buildings (for prioritizing applications to manage and/or transfer risk. Disaster investment in reconstruction and retrofitting, for risk analysis was born out of the financial and example). insurance sector’s need to quantify the risk of 2. Preparedness: Informing early warning systems and comparatively rare high-impact natural hazard emergency measures and supporting contingency events. As governments increasingly seek to planning at various levels. Understanding the manage their sovereign financial risk or support geographic area that will be affected by a programs that manage individual financial risks hazard event, along with different events’ (e.g., micro-insurance or household earthquake intensity and frequency, is critical for planning insurance), developing robust and scientific risk evacuation routes, building shelters, and running information is critical. A Framework for Quantifying and Understanding Risk In its most simple form, disaster risk is a function of three components—hazard, exposure, and vulnerability (see figure). However, within this simple framework a multitude of possible approaches to risk assessment and risk modelling is possible. Ha za rd HAZARD Exposure EXPOSURE The Components The Components Ha Haza The zardrd probability, or chance of a likelihood, Exposure Exposure The location, attributes, and values of The The The Components Components Components HaHaza TheThe za rd rd destructive potentially The The likelihood, likelihood, a potentially potentiallydestructive likelihood, likelihood, potentially destructive probability destructive phenomenon. probability probability orchance ,,or phenomenon. , orphenomenon. probability or chance ,chance chanceof phenomenon. ofa of aof a a Exposure Exposure assets The TheThe that are Thelocation, location, that are important to communities. assets that location, location, assets that important attributes, attributes, are areimportant attributes, attributes, to communities. and and andand important valuesof values to of communities. values of of values to communities. for for Assessing Assessing Risk Risk potentially potentially destructive destructive phenomenon. phenomenon. assets assets are are that that 27° 43' 0" N 85° 19' 0" E important important 27° 27°43' 43'0" N85° 0"N to communities. to communities. 19'0" 85°19' 0" EE Risk for for Assessing Assessing Risk Risk 27° 27° 43' N 0" 43' 0" 85°N19' 85° 19'E0" E 0" material: cinder block roof: steel block material: material:cinder cinder block roof: roof:steel steel material: material: cinder cinder blockblock steelsteel roof:roof: Vuln er abil VULNERABILITY it y Impact IMPACT Risk RISK Vuln Vuln The The likelihood er erabil likelihood that abil it it y that assets yassets will bewill be damaged or damaged Impact Impact For use in preparedness, an evaluation of Risk Risk Is the composite of the impacts of ALL poten- Vuln Vuln erlikelihood destroyed The The er abil abil it when likelihoodyit y thatexposed that assets to a be assetswill will hazard event. bedamaged damaged orImpact or Impact what Foruse For might use in happen to people inpreparedness, preparedness, anevaluation an evaluation Risk of Risk and assets of ALL Is Isthepotential thecompositeevents composite of (100’s ofthe the or 1,000’s impacts impacts of of or destroyed when exposed to might whatfrom a happen single to people and assets event. TheThedestroyed likelihood likelihood destroyed when thatthat when exposed assets assets to will60% exposedwill beto a ahazard be damaged damaged hazardevent. or or For For event. what use use in preparedness, in preparedness, what might might happen happen to an people an people and evaluation toevaluation and assets of of assets Is of Is the ALL the ALLmodels). potential composite composite of events potential of the the impacts events (100’s impacts (100’s or or1,000’s of of 1,000’s a hazard event. 50% destroyed destroyed whenwhen exposed exposed to ato a hazard hazard 60% event. event. what from what might from aasingle might event. happen happen single to people to people event. andand assets assets ALLALL of ofmodels). potential potential events models). events (100’s (100’s or 1,000’s or 1,000’s 50% 60% 50% from from a single a single event. event. of models). of models). 60% 60% 50% 50% 4. Resilient reconstruction: Informing early and aftermath. Risk information for resilient rapid estimates of damage and providing critical reconstruction needs to be available before information for reconstruction. Risk assessment an event occurs, since after the event there is can play a critical role in impact modelling before rarely time to collect the information needed to a hazard event strikes (in the days leading up to inform resilient design and land-use plans. Risk a cyclone event, for example), or it can provide information generated by risk assessments ex initial and rapid estimates of human, physical, ante is therefore extremely useful for recovery and economic loss in an event’s immediate and reconstruction. 07 08 Recommendations to Improve the Quality and Uptake of Risk Assessments Below is a series of recommendations for DRM 2. Promote and enable ownership of the /// practitioners, government officials, donors, and risk assessment process and efforts to nongovernmental organizations commissioning and mitigate risk. /// generating risk information. The recommendations Ownership is critical for ensuring that knowledge created through a risk assessment is authoritative are based on the collective experience of the and therefore acted upon. It is certainly World Bank Group and other institutions active possible for experts to generate risk analysis in disaster risk assessment and aim to ensure without ever engaging with local authorities; that any investment in risk information promotes but experience has shown that regardless of more-resilient development and communities. the sophistication or accuracy of their analysis, In particular, we stress that the best outcomes there will be limited uptake of this information. are likely to be achieved when those investing in Given the political, social, and financial costs of risk information and those producing it work in relocating communities away from high flood concert and share a common understanding of the risk areas, for example, the involvement of local undertaking. authorities is essential. Because translating risk information into action often depends on 1. Clearly define the purpose of the risk /// sensitive negotiations between public officials, assessment before analysis starts. /// affected communities, and financial providers, Risk assessments commissioned in response to there is a clear need for authoritative information a clear and specific request for information have that is built into a regulated framework and tended to be more effective in reducing fiscal or backed by the necessary legal and institutional context. Successful assessments are typically physical risk; see the Costa Rica case study for an those that partner risk experts with government example. In contrast, risk assessments initiated counterparts to design, implement, and without first defining a question and an end-user communicate the results of the risk assessment. typically become mere scientific and engineering The rise of open data has enabled citizens to map exercises. Risk assessments that are properly entire cities; but the data they generate are more targeted suit their intended purpose and avoid likely to be used when the government is also being over-engineered and/or over-resourced. engaged in this process. The Assessment of Seismic Risk to Costa Rican Water and Sanitation Systems In Costa Rica, water and sanitation officials seeking to ensure the water and sanitation systems. Focusing on this goal ensured that continuation of services following an earthquake requested support for resources were well targeted and results appropriately communicated, a risk assessment for their sector. The development of the objectives, and allowed the stakeholders to immediately consider integrating results collection of data, and presentation of results were all aimed at the into mainstream operations very specific goal of understanding how an earthquake would affect 3. Cultivate and promote open data /// The Rise of Open Data practices. /// The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery and World Bank Experience gained in the last decade strongly launched the Open Data for Resilience Initiative in 2011 to foster and catalyze speaks to the need to encourage the creation the open data movement for climate and disaster resilience. Under this and use of open data. The analysis of natural initiative, web-based geospatial platforms (GeoNodes) in more than 20 hazards and their risks is a resource- and countries have been used to open more than 1,300 geospatial data sets to the data-intensive process, whereby the return on public and to catalyze community mapping of buildings and infrastructure. expended resources can be maximized if the Promotion of OpenStreetMap in Sri Lanka is a prime example of a data are created once and used often, and if they government-led volunteer geospatial initiative: in a two-month period, more are iteratively improved. Current approaches to than 30,000 individual buildings were mapped as part of a broader risk developing open exposure data on the location, identification program. type, and value of assets continue to be improved, and volunteered geospatial information and remote sensing products offer new opportunities The Experience of Padang: Translating Risk Awareness to collect and update fundamental data. into Action That said, despite the progress made, some A massive “Build Back Better” campaign led by the government of Indonesia fundamental data gaps prohibit meaningful and in the aftermath of the 2009 Padang earthquake demonstrates conclusively accurate assessments of disaster and climate that well-targeted education and communication about risk can increase risks. For example, most parts of the world awareness of natural hazards and their potential impacts. Analysis also shows, lack global digital elevation data at resolutions however, that progress from increased awareness to substantive action is very difficult to achieve, even in a community that has witnessed at first hand appropriate for analyzing the potential the devastation of an earthquake. Overall, analysis shows that homeowners inundation from flood, storm surge, sea-level can be motivated to put risk knowledge into practice and build more resilient rise, tsunami, and so on. Similarly, the absence homes if they are offered the correct combination of timely information, of historical hydrometeorological data in many technical training, community supervision, and financial and nonfinancial countries is creating significant challenges in incentives and disincentives. quantifying the climate risks of today and those of the future. Communicating “What If...?” through Tools Such as InaSAFE 4. Make better communication of risk /// information an urgent priority. /// The InaSAFE project in Indonesia demonstrates some of the improvements that can be made in communicating risk at the subnational and city levels. Clear communication throughout the risk Among the key partners in InaSAFE’s development were Indonesian assessment process—from initiation of the authorities, who realized the need for interactive risk communication tools that assessment to delivery of results and the could robustly and simply answer “what if?” questions. InaSAFE is demand development of plans in response—is critical driven; it included user participation in its development, uses open data and an for translating risk information into action. open model, and offers extensive graphical displays (provided by a GIS system) Experience has shown that progress from and an extensive training program. Communication was frequent and wide- ranging throughout the development of InaSAFE and continued during the increased awareness to action can be very collection of data, the use of the model, and the formation of response plans. difficult to achieve—see the Padang case The software has won awards and is being used in other countries, including study—especially given the social, political, the Philippines and Sri Lanka. cultural, and financial complexities involved in decision making at any level, from individual to government. 09 10 Four Examples of Multi-institutional Networks Communicating risk information must be customized to the audience. Metrics like annual • The Global Earthquake Model brings together public institutions, private sector institutions (most notably insurance and reinsurance agencies), average loss and probable maximum loss, for nongovernmental entities, and the academic sector, all with the goal of example, are of interest and relevant to the improving access to tools, data sets, and knowledge related to seismic risk. financial sector, but they are poor metrics for • The Willis Research Network initiative links more than 50 international communicating with national- or subnational- research institutions to the expertise of the financial and insurance sector level decision makers involved in DRM. in order to support scientists’ quantification of natural hazard risk. These decision makers may prefer interactive • The Understanding Risk community of practice, made up of more than tools that enable people to answer “what if?” 3,000 practitioners from across all sectors in more than 125 countries, questions robustly and simply (“What if an is creating new partnerships and catalyzing advances in understanding, earthquake/cyclone/other natural hazard hit quantifying, and communicating natural hazard risk. my community—How many buildings would • The Bangladesh Urban Earthquake Resilience Project is a platform for collapse or be damaged?”). Tools of this type addressing urban risk that brings together officials in planning, governance, already exist—see the InaSAFE case study for an public service, and construction code development as well as scientists and example—but there are immense opportunities engineers, and that fosters consensus on how to overcome institutional, legislative, policy, and behavioral barriers to a more earthquake- to increase the number and availability of resilient city. interactive, highly graphical visualization tools, which would enable all decision makers, from individuals to national governments, to Capturing Dynamic Seismic Risk in Kathmandu, Nepal meaningfully interact with risk information. Few risk assessment efforts have addressed evolving exposure and 5. Foster multidisciplinary, multi-institutional, /// vulnerability, along with the resulting change in risk, in urban environments. While the contribution of urbanization to greater exposure is widely and multi-sectoral collaboration at all recognized, studies rarely consider how changes in urban construction levels, from the international to community practices affect building vulnerability—often for the worse. The recent study level. /// of evolving seismic risk in Kathmandu offers an important example of this To generate a usable risk assessment product, approach. The study shows that the incremental construction of houses in Kathmandu, where stories are added to buildings informally over time, has technical experts and decision makers must increased both exposure and vulnerability in the area. Using a single-scenario consult with one another and reach agreement on earthquake event, a reproduction of the 8.1 magnitude Bihar earthquake of the purpose and process of the assessment. The 1934, the analysis finds that the potential number of buildings sustaining actual development of risk information is clearly heavy damage or collapse in this event has increased from ~50,000 in 1990 to ~125,000 in 2010, and that it may be as high as 240,000 by 2020 if action is a multidisciplinary effort that takes place through not taken. collaborations ranging from international efforts to multi-institutional arrangements at national and subnational levels. There are many efforts Rapidly Growing Flood Risk in Dhaka, Bangladesh currently under way that speak to the success Considering global changes in hazard and exposure for flood offers some of this approach. However, success has been sobering statistics for the future: “middle-of-the-road” socioeconomic changes comparatively limited in merging community- and climate change could increase riverine flood risk for between 100 million level understanding of risk with a national and 580 million people by 2050, depending on the climate scenario. At a or subnational understanding of risk. This is city level, changes in exposure and flood hazard for Dhaka, Bangladesh, were found likely to increase the annual average loss by a factor of 20 to a missed opportunity, given that a common 40. Moreover, while both climate change and socioeconomic development understanding of the risks and necessary steps to were found to contribute importantly to this increase in risk, the individual reduce them could trigger greater action. contribution of socioeconomic development was predicted to be greater than that of climate change. 6. Consider the broader risk context. /// /// Given that “a changing climate leads to changes Rarely do countries, communities, or citizens in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, face potential risks from only one hazard, or duration, and timing of extreme weather and even from natural hazards alone. Our complex climate events” (IPCC 2012), there is increasing environments and social structures are such interest in understanding the impacts of climate that multiple or connected risks—from financial change, specifically with respect to calculating hazards, multiple or cascading natural hazards, the loss under future adverse climate events. and anthropogenic hazards—are the norm. Just as multi-peril risk calculations are required for Using the modelling techniques and approaches many financial applications, territorial planning developed to model disaster risk, experts have should draw on information from assessments demonstrated the potential to determine future of multiple hazards (flood, landslide, and loss under climate change; see the Dhaka case earthquake, for example) in order to reduce risk. study. However, it is important to recognize that We know that failure to consider the full hazard the fundamental data sets that enable the risks environment can result in maladaptation (heavy of today to be quantified are the same as those concrete structures with a ground-level soft story required to determine the impacts of adverse for parking can protect against cyclone wind, for events in the future. example, but can be deadly in an earthquake), whereas adopting a multi-hazard risk approach 8. Understand, quantify, and communicate /// leads to better land-use planning, better response the uncertainties and limitations of risk capacity, greater risk awareness, and increased information. ability to set priorities for mitigation actions. /// Once risk information is produced, all users Particular caution should be taken with risks in food security and the agricultural sector, and must be aware of and knowledgeable about its we recommend that these risks be considered limitations and uncertainties. Failure to consider alongside flood and drought analysis. these can lead to flawed decision making and the inadvertent increase in risk. A risk model can 7. Keep abreast of evolving risk. produce a very precise result—it may show, for /// /// Risk assessments need to account for temporal and spatial changes in hazard, exposure, and example, that a 1-in-100-year flood will affect vulnerability, particularly in rapidly urbanizing 388,123 people—but in reality the accuracy of areas or where climate change impacts will be the model and input data may provide only an felt the most. A risk assessment that provides order of magnitude estimate. Similarly, sharply an estimation of evolving or future risk is a way delineated flood zones on a hazard map do not to engage stakeholders in carrying out actions adequately reflect the uncertainty associated now in order to avoid or mitigate the risk that with the estimate and could lead to decisions is accumulating in their city or country; see such as locating critical facilities just outside the the Kathmandu case study. Risk analysis offers “flood line,” where the actual risk is the same as an opportunity to quantify the decrease in future risk that arises from better enforcement if the facility was located inside the flood zone. of building codes, for example, and hence It is incumbent upon specialists producing risk demonstrates the benefit of spending additional information to clearly and simply communicate funds on building code enforcement. uncertainties and limitations. 11 12 9. Ensure that risk information is credible and /// 10. Encourage innovations in open tools for /// transparent. /// risk identification. /// Risk information must be scientifically and In the last 10 years, immense progress has been technically rigorous, open for review, and made in creating new open source hazard and transparent regarding its limitations and risk modelling software. More than 80 freely uncertainties, which may arise from uncertainties available software packages, many of which are in the exposure, hazard, and vulnerability open source, are now available for flood, tsunami, functions. The best way to demonstrate cyclone (wind and surge), and earthquake, with credibility is to open data, models, and results for at least 30 of these in widespread use. Significant review by independent, technically competent progress has also been made in improving individuals. As risk modelling has become more open source geospatial tools, such as QGIS technically complex it has also become more and GeoNode, which are lowering the financial accessible, and therefore anyone can feasibly barriers to understanding risks at national and run a risk model—but without the appropriate subnational levels. Yet all this innovation has scientific and engineering training and judgment, created challenges around assessing “fitness- the results may be fundamentally incorrect and for-purpose,” interoperability, transparency, and may mislead decision makers. standards. These need to be addressed in a way that continues to catalyze innovation and yet also better supports risk model users. Further Information Please refer to Understanding Risk in an Evolving World: Emerging Best Practices in Natural Disaster Risk Assessment for case studies and further information on the development and use of risk information. Alternatively contact Dr. Alanna Simpson at GFDRR for more information: asimpson1@worldbank.org. References GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery). 2014. Open Data for Resilience Initiative Field Guide. Washington, DC: World Bank. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A special report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. World Bank and GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery). 2013. Building Resilience: Integrating Climate and Disaster Risk into Development— The World Bank Group Experience. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/ Worldbank/document/SDN/Full_Report_Building_ Resilience_Integrating_Climate_Disaster_Risk_ Development.pdf. World Bank. 2012. The Sendai Report: Managing Disaster Risks for a Resilient Future. https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/ gfdrr.org/files/publication/Sendai_Report_051012_0.pdf Photo Credits World Bank Group Flickr Website Joaquin Toro, World Bank Group 15 Across the globe, a consensus is emerging on the central importance of risk information in disaster risk management. When risks are quantified and the potential impacts of haz- ards are anticipated, governments, communities, and individuals are able to make more informed decisions. This publication highlights some of the influential efforts—by technical specialists, insti- tutions, and governments around the world—to create and communicate risk information quickly and at low cost, to improve the quality and transparency of risk information, and to enable more local engagement in the production of authoritative risk information than ever before. Case studies spanning 40 countries and contributed by more than 50 institu- tions showcase emerging best practices, demonstrate how risk assessments are being used to inform disaster risk management and broader development, and highlight lessons learned through these efforts. Taken as a group, these case studies evidence the need for contin- ued investment in accurate and useful risk information and provide recommendations for the future. ABOUT GFDRR The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) helps high-risk, low-income developing counties better understand and reduce their vulnerabilities to natural hazards, and adapt to climate change. Working with over 300 national, community level, and international partners GFDRR provides grant financing, on-the-ground technical assistance helping mainstream disaster mitigation policies into country level strategies, and thought leadership on disaster and climate resilience issues through a range of knowledge sharing activities. GFDRR is managed by the World Bank and funded by 21 donor partners. WWW.GFDRR.ORG