How people relate to risk should be a central consideration of disaster risk and recovery projects

A new approach to disaster risk and recovery must be adopted that takes into account how people and institutions think, behave and act in relation to risk, argues a new report issued Thursday by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).

IFRC’s 2014 World Disasters Report takes on the issue of why culture is not a central consideration in disaster risk reduction efforts, as well as how disasters and risk influence culture.

Disaster risk and recovery projects are less effective if they do not take into account how culture affects the way people relate to risk, contends an IFRC statement announcing the release of the report.

With climate change increasing the number of people at risk and the frequency and/or severity of climate hazards, a new approach is needed that takes into account how people and institutions think, behave and act in relation to risk, the statement notes.

“The one thing that is certain is that we will have poorly sustained impact if we do not adequately take into account people’s cultures, beliefs and attitudes in relation to risk, and if we do not build on local knowledge,” says Elhadj As Sy, IFRC Secretary General.

“Climate change is leading to damaged livelihoods and increased vulnerabilities. Natural hazards are also becoming more frequent and extreme. We must get this right; we must include cultural considerations in disaster risk reduction,” Sy adds.

The report’s annual summary of disaster information shows that almost 100 million people were affected by disasters in 2013, 87% of those living in Asia.

Floods remain the most frequent natural hazard, accounting for 44% of deaths caused by natural hazards. Floods were followed by storms, accounting for 41% of deaths caused by natural disasters, the statement notes.

People’s own priorities often include the need to live in high-risk environments because that is where they can gain their livelihoods, IFRC points out.

“Disaster risk reduction approaches must recognize why people are living with risks and how their behaviour and attitudes related to culture affect their exposure and sensitivity to hazards,” the statement notes. “To reduce these risks it is essential to focus on how livelihoods can be made more robust, safer and where necessary, be replaced.”

In total last year, natural hazards caused losses estimated at US$118.6 billion, the fourth lowest of the decade. The number of people killed by technological disasters is also 26% below the decade’s average, with 6,711 reported killed in 2013 compared to the decade average of 7,594.

But challenges remain. The Ebola outbreak in West Africa demonstrates that efforts to stop the deadly disease will be in vain if misperceptions and cultural beliefs are not addressed through effective social mobilization and behavioural change, the IFRC argues.

The report cites other examples:

• people blamed a flood on an angry goddess (River Kosi, India, in 2008)
• people blamed a volcanic eruption on the mountain god (Mount Merapi);
• many people in Aceh (Indonesia) believed the 2004 tsunami was a form of divine retribution for allowing tourism or drilling for oil; and
• similar beliefs were widespread in the United States during Hurricane Katrina when some believed it showed God’s displeasure with some of the behaviours of the people who live in or visit New Orleans.

The IFRC argues it is necessary to recognize the underlying causes of risk, which cannot be done without considering the central role played by culture.

“The issues of culture and local knowledge matter now more than ever, as both hazards and vulnerability are affected by climate change. The resulting stresses on social, physical and economic systems are shifting the world into a new era of risk,” Sy suggests. “Future investment must be channelled towards a more culturally sensitive, human-based approach to disaster risk reduction.”