FIRST EDITION July 2015

Urban Resilience Master Planning: A Guidebook for Practitioners and Policymakers

Copyright © 2015 Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative.

Permission to use this document is granted provided that the copyright notice appears in all reproductions and that
both the copyright and this permission notice appear, and use of document or parts thereof is for educational,
informational, and non-commercial or personal use only.

EMI must be acknowledged in all cases as the source when producing any part of this publication.

ISBN: 978-621-95288-1-8

Published in the Philippines by Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative, Inc.

An international, not-for-profit, scientific organization dedicated to advancing
urban resilience through science and innovation.

Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative

2F Puno Bldg. Annex 47 Kalayaan Ave., Diliman
Quezon City 1101, Philippines
Telephone/Fax: +63-2-9279643; Telephone +63-2-4334074
Email: info@emi-megacities.org
Website: http://www.emi-megacities.org
Urban
Resilience
Master
Planning
A GUIDEBOOK FOR PRACTITIONERS AND
POLICYMAKERS

M A R C H 2 0 1 5
 Acknowledgement
This Guidebook is EMI’s response to present and upcoming challenges of cities
in finding effective methodologies and tools to design, implement, and invest in
disaster risk reduction. It aims to provide urban disaster risk practitioners with a
roadmap and methodology to set up realistic, practical, and efficient DRR solutions
for safer and more resilient cities. This Guidebook presents the general framework
for an integrated holistic approach to managing and reducing risk in complex
urban setting such as megacities. EMI is working on a set of sectoral guidebooks
to provide in-depth methodology and case studies on core urban sectors such as
Land Use Planning and Emergency Management and to provide methodology
and experience on putting in investigating the legal and institutional arrangements
for DRM and for assessing hazard, vulnerability, risk and capacity. These last two
elements provide scientific parameters and foundation for the development of the
DRMMP.

The main authors of this Guidebook are Dr. Eng. Fouad Bendimerad, Chairman
and Executive Director, and Mr. Jerome Zayas, Senior Scientist, of EMI. It includes
written contributions by Mr. Kent Borinaga, Ms. Bianca Perez, Mr. Michael
Padilla, and Mr. Robin Crozier of EMI’s Urban Risk Management Applications
Department. The creative design and lay-out of this guidebook were collectively
done by Ms. Ayhen Dalena, Mr. Cristian Conde, and Ms. Ishtar Padao of the EMI’s
Knowledge Development and Dissemination Department. Administrative and
logistics support were provided by Ms. Jenie Darang, Mr. Angel Baguhin, and Ms.
Zenaida Tejerero.

The authors wish to thank Ms. Anne Siders, Mr. Robert Reitherman, Dr. Mary
Antonette Beroya-Eitner, Atty. Violeta Seva, Dr. Hussein Lidasan, Mr. Jose Mari
Daclan, Mr. Kristoffer John Dakis, and Mr. Joel Abelinde for their invaluable inputs
in editing, reviewing and updating this guidebook and making it more user friendly
to its target readers. EMI’s work will not be possible without the contribution of
all its associate scientists and practitioners including Dr. Asteya Santiago, Dr. Bijan
Khazai, Dr. Marqueza Reyes, Dr. Renan Tanhueco, Dr. Kristoffer Berse, Dr. Ravi
Sinha, Dr. Jamilur Choudhury, Dr. Mehedi Ansary, Mr. Troy Kindred, Mr. James
Buika, Mr. Amod Dixit, and Ms. Shirley Mattingly who have all joined hands with us
in making cities around the world resilient to disasters.

Most importantly, the authors are grateful to EMI’s city partners, including Quezon
City, Pasig City, Makati City, Metro Manila Development Authority, Kathmandu
Metropolitan City, Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai, Dhaka City Corporations (North and South), Mexico D.F., Quito,
Bogota, Los Angeles, and Kobe City, for their past and continued collaboration and
trust. The experiences gained through partnerships and projects are the building
blocks for developing the contents of this guidebook. The DRMMP methodology
is robust because it went through several years of application and improvements in
various cities around the world.
 Contents
CONTENTS III

ABOUT THE GUIDEBOOK 4

Background 4
User’s Guide 5

INTRODUCTION 6

FROM RESPONSE TO RESILIENCE 8

The Concept of Mainstreaming 9
Tools for DRM Mainstreaming 11
Linking Urban Resilience and DRR Mainstreaming 14

BUILDING URBAN RESILIENCE THROUGH DRM MASTER PLANNING 20

PROCESS TO IMPLEMENT THE DRMMP 24

Phase 1: Organization And Preparation 25
PHASE 2: Diagnosis and Analysis 31
PHASE 3: Plan Development 43
PHASE 4: Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation 46

SUSTAINING EFFORTS TO BUILD RESILIENCE 51

DRMMP PROCESS CHECKLIST 52

ACRONYMS 53
GLOSSARY 55
REFERENCES 57
APPENDIX 59
Appendix 1: Sample Official Orders to Set-up the Organizational Structure
to Develop DRMMPS

iii
 About the Guidebook

Background
All cities undertake masterplanning as part of their development process. Master planning defines the vision for
the city, establishes the programs, projects and activities to be undertaken, and determines how resources should
be prioritized to realize that vision and put the actions into practice. It can drive investment that will build a city’s
capacity to respond to challenges such as unplanned development, informal construction, and inadequate provision
of basic social services. Cities, particularly those in developing countries, face these ever-growing challenges that are
made more pronounced by rapid urbanization and the increasing frequency and intensity of disaster events.

Integrating disaster risk reduction in the master planning process can enable cities to respond to these challenges.
For over 10 years, EMI has implemented the Disaster Risk Management Master Planning (DRMMP) program in
major cities around the world to help them understand their exposure to disaster events and what development
interventions they can put in place to mitigate the impacts of disasters. The DRMMP provides the framework within
which investments can be rationalized and organized around disaster risk reduction (DRR) goals. It follows the urban
development planning process to ensure that DRR aligns with the broader aims of urban development. This way,
development efforts are reinforced to withstand severe shocks from disasters that can derail a city’s development
trajectory. It is also anchored on the laws, regulations, policies and procedures that define how cities are governed,
the mandates of each institution, and how policy and decisions are made on a day to day basis.

There are several ways by which urban development can be made more resilient:

• Projects take into account hazard exposure, vulnerability, and risk in their design and implementation;
• Services are designed to withstand the impact of extreme or catastrophic events;
• Stakeholders understand the types of risk they face and are aware of the trade-offs they need to make in
addressing those risks; and,
• Actual investments are being made on measures that reduce the risk of physical assets and populations that are
exposed to hazards.

This Guidebook shares EMI’s experience in operationalizing these concepts in the context of city planning and
city management. It provides the building blocks to develop a DRMMP. It is based on a process that is scientific,
participatory, transparent, and designed to promote shared understanding and ownership of risks that empower
stakeholders to take action. The Guidebook is meant to be a living document that will be improved as further
experience and innovation in urban resilience become available. It is supplemented by several sectoral guidebooks
that EMI will be publishing within the year 2015.

The concepts, processes, methods, and case studies described in this Guidebook are reported in detail in previously
published EMI technical proceedings, project reports, and topical reports. Many of these documents are available
online through EMI’s website (www.emi-megacities.org) as supplementary materials.

4
The main users of this Guidebook are disaster risk management practitioners. These include government officials
(local and national), technical specialists, emergency managers, utility companies, disaster risk management (DRM)
researchers, non-government organizations, and community organizations involved in and concerned with urban
DRM and urban resilience. Other target users include specialists from investment, development, funding and
humanitarian agencies implementing programs in urban areas.

The Guidebook is intended to serve as a practical guide that explains the process of and requirements for putting in
place a DRM plan. To this end, it provides overarching principles that should inform the DRM planning process,
checklists of useful steps in the process, and actual examples of how DRMMP was undertaken in various cities. It
can be used as a reference for DRM planning at the local level.

The Guidebook provides users with the basic working knowledge of urban resilience. Many of the steps described
here require technical expertise and analytical skills that may be beyond the scope of the users’ work and authority.
Our aim is for the Guidebook to provide useful information for users, whether they attempt the DRMMP process
on their own or with the support of technical experts and specialists. In particular, government officials will be able
to write robust technical terms of reference for seeking consulting services for the development of disaster risk
management master plans and be able to subsequently manage the development and implementation of these plans.
Similarly, funding organizations will be able to structure effective urban resilience programs and to define concrete
outputs and outcomes of these programs.

User’s Guide
To aid the reader, concrete examples and illustrations are presented throughout the Guidebook. Specific tools and
expected outputs are also highlighted in certain portions of the document. The following symbols are used to
highlight particular points:

Key Point
An important idea orinformation that should be
taken into account when doing a particular activity

Example
A concrete example based on the experience of
a particular city

Checklist
A summary of the key learning points
to remember

Product
Based on an actual product produced in
the DRMMP

5
Introduction
Since the impacts of disasters are most felt at the local level, they require proactive action and intervention directly
from local authorities. However, the extent of damage varies from one area to another. Highly urbanized areas are
typically more vulnerable to natural hazards as a result of environmental and socio-economic stresses brought about
by rapid and often unplanned population increase and development. Because of the concentration of population,
infrastructure and resources in urban areas, they stand to lose more in the event of an actual disaster. Thus, it is
becoming increasingly important for cities to develop and enhance their capacity to manage disaster risks in order to
protect their assets and investments.

Cities have largely and chronically been neglected by national governments and international organizations in terms
of dealing with risk and its contributory factors such as poverty and rapid urbanization . Contrary to the popular
notion that cities have the capacity to address risk on their own, most cities, particularly in the developing world,
have been ineffective in managing their risk, which remains high and is continuously rising. Local neglect of disaster
risk management (DRM) is exacerbated by the fact that many local authorities are already overburdened and lack the
capacity to deal with disaster risk.

The key to building the resilience of cities without draining the resources of local authorities is to mainstream DRM
in the city’s daily functions and services. By integrating risk reduction parameters in planning processes, such as
land use and urban planning, public works, and emergency response planning, among others, the task of managing
disaster risks become more attainable.

However, mainstreaming DRM in the operations of urban local authorities is easier said than done. DRM in general
is a new field of practice for most city officials and personnel, and disaster risk reduction (DRR) implementation
itself is complex. It takes time, effort, training, and, most importantly, tools in order to effectively and fully assimilate
disaster risk reduction in city functions and operations.

1
Bendimerad, Fouad; Mattingly, Shirley; Fernandez, Jeannette; Sinha, Ravi; and Reyes, Marqueza (2007). “Urban and Megacities Risk, What is at
stake and what should be done?” Open File Paper, 28 May. http://wwe.emi-megacities.org
2
Disaster risk reduction (DRR) is defined by the United Nations Office for Disaster Reduction as “the concept and practice of reducing
disaster risks through systematic efforts to analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through reduced exposure to hazards,
lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improved preparedness for adverse events.”
Disaster risk management (DRM) on the other hand is defined as “the systematic process of using administrative directives, organizations,
and operational skills and capacities to implementstrategies, policies and improved coping capacities in order to lessen the adverse impacts of
hazards and the possibility of disaster.”

6
From Response
to Resilience
From Response
to Resilience
Human and material losses from disasters continue to rise, and the cost of responding to these disasters have also
risen exponentially. Increasing urbanization resulting to poorly if not unplanned settlements continues to drive this
trend. There is a need for measures that will reduce the impact of disasters on society and improve the ability of
people and infrastructure to recover.

Risk Management is a key approach to dealing with the impact of disasters. It involves addressing the problem at the
level of risk by:

• Understanding the nature of hazards;

• Developing scenarios to understand the impact of various potential events;
• Planning ahead to get ready before disaster strikes; and
• Integrating operational processes to manage post-event situations with functional processes to protect
assets, minimize disruption of services, and improve the overall safety and welfare of the population (Figure 1).

It is important to highlight the final item in this list. DRM stands on the principle that disasters are not inevitable,
and the impact of disasters can be managed and reduced through appropriate development actions (Yodmani, 2001).
Resilience can be built when citizens and the institutions that serve them take action to build a culture of safety.

Below is a diagram that shows the shift from response to DRM:

RESPONSE/ CRISIS MANAGEMENT DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT

Bridging the Fundamental Gap

Operational Proc
esses Function Processes To...
to manage post-event situation Protect Assets
(i,e., public saf
ety)
Minimize Discruption of Services

Imorive Safety and Welfare

of the Population
(i.e., development )

Figure 1. Shift of Paradigm from Response/Crisis Management to DRM

Impacts of disasters can be managed and reduced through

appropriate development actions and measures informed by
science.

8
Recent calamities like the earthquake that struck Port au Prince, Haiti, in 2010, the flooding of Bangkok, Thailand,
in 2011, and two devastating typhoons, Bopha and Haiyan, which hit key cities in the southern and easter portions
of the Philippines in 2012 and 2013 respectively, have shown that disasters impede and even lead to a loss of hard-
earned progress towards the achievement of development goals such as poverty alleviation, access to education,
and maternal and child health. It is also possible that development choices made by individuals, communities and
nations generate new disaster risks or exacerbate existing ones. For example, infrastructure expansion like railway
lines, roads and bridges can create barriers across valleys that can lead to severe flooding (UNDP, 2012). Sustainable
development, defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs (UN, 1987), requires DRM in order to protect infrastructure and
development investments.

FROM RECOVERY TO PREVENTION

Risk assessment equals risk Risk assessment is part of risk
management management

Exclusive science/technical approach Exclusive science/technical approach

Single institution task Multi-institutional enterprise

Risk as a sectoral Risk as a multi-sectoral

implementation issue coordination issue

Risk as an agency-specific issue Risk as a whole-of-society issue

The Concept of Mainstreaming

In order to effectively accomplish urban disaster risk reduction,
risk management needs to be integrated within all the operations
of local authorities. For local authorities, this means having
processes and practices that inherently incorporate urban risk
reduction in the key functions that they regularly undertake, such
as land use and urban development planning, construction and
building licensing, environmental management, health, and social Mainstreaming DRR means that
local governments need to develop
welfare.
or modify laws, policies, and
organizational arrangements as well
Mainstreaming DRR refers to the process of incorporating as plans, programs, and projects to
the practice of risk management within the standard integrate disaster risk reduction within
operations of public and private institutions. Mainstreaming their governance and developmental
is an essential process for accomplishing resilience against processes. - ISO31000:2009 Risk
disasters because it provides a common vision, enables an Management – Principles and
effective distribution of roles and responsibilities, and mobilizes Guidelines, ISO, 2009
collective resources where they are most needed.

9
 Figure 2. Framework for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction

Figure 2 illustrates EMI’s DRR mainstreaming framework. At the center is the local authority where day-to-day
transactions between the citizens and government take place through the various services that local authorities
are mandated to provide. This includes development planning, regulating construction of buildings, providing
social services, carrying out response and relief activities during emergencies, ensuring public order and safety,
promoting public health, among others. It is also where partnerships and other types of direct interaction between
other stakeholders such as private sector, academia, media, non-government organizations (NGO) and community
based organizations (CBO) occur with respect to the delivery of these services. Central Authorities, or National
Government, on the other hand, support local level implementation with policy and the resources to implement
policy, including putting in place the necessary safeguards for oversight and regulation. This ensures that while local
level implementation is supported, it falls within the legal and institutional framework of the state.

Mainstreaming is a concept that enables a more effective approach to building urban resilience. Resilience is the
ability of a system, community or society to resist, absorb, accommodate and recover from the effects of a hazard in
a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and
functions (UNISDR, 2007). Resilience is characterized by the ability to build and increase capacity for learning and
adaptation (Carpenter, Walker, Anderies, & Abel, 2001).

Cities are complex systems, composed of constituent elements and larger organizations within which they are
nested. A city’s resilience is affected by the resilience of its constituent elements and the larger organizational
systems to which it belongs (Can Tho City, 2014). This complexity must be reflected in city development plans and
mainstreaming provides the framework and the structure where all these constituent elements come together.

In the case of Can Tho City, a long development plan was developed inconsideration of its
key challenges such as flooding and uncontrolled urbanization. The city studied its municipal
finance, urban planning, disaster risk management, climate change, community and social
protection, energy and other aspects in relation to how these relate to the threats of flooding
and uncontrolled urbanization. How these sectors level up the identified threats define the
level of its resilience as a city.

10
Tools for DRM Mainstreaming
There are several disaster risk management (DRM) tools that apply at the level of local government. In 2012, EMI
reviewed 76 of these tools3, ten (10) of which are presented here in terms of their usefulness in local urban settings.
These ten tools were taken into account based on a set of criteria indicators representing three core principles of
mainstreaming, i.e., central coordination, local implementation, and participation4. The criteria indicators are meant
to assess their:

• Effectiveness to DRR processes; and;

• Resource requirements taking into account application in urban settings in developing countries.

Table 1 summarizes each tool’s effectiveness in mainstreaming DRM within a local government’s functions and
operations5.

Table 1. Matrix of Select DRM Mainstreaming Tools that are Assessed to be Effective for Local Level Application (EMI, 2012)

3
“Tools” are used interchangeably with models and instruments and in this context refer to framework that lays out the methodology for
undertaking DRM including the mechanism for implementing the elements in the methodology
4
Desk Review of Disaster Management Models and Tools for Local Urban Application, EMI 2012. The study, which is by no means
exhaustive, identified and proposed a set of DRM instruments that can be promoted for local adoption in the urban context. The analysis
covered only those that have been developed—or at least have the potential—for replication in areas outside of their respective origins. There
is also an emphasis on tools that target changes at the institutional level, where DRM policies and decision-making can be most effective and
comprehensive.

11
Since impacts of disasters are most felt at the local level, they require proactive action and intervention directly
from local authorities and the affected communities. In addition, local governments are the most likely to retain
relevant information and insights on what course of action is needed at the local scale. The mainstreaming process
will only take place effectively when local authorities have developed an understanding of the risks they face and
have put in place mechanisms (i.e., policies and processes) to effectively manage those risks within the functions that
they undertake. Thus, the mandate of local authorities must be clearly indicated. This is the very reason for giving
emphasis on local implementation as key parameter for assessing the effectiveness of various DRM tools.

Central coordination is deemed equally important to local implementation as national government agencies provide
frameworks and policies that determine the extent of DRM implementation at all levels (i.e., from central agencies of
the government down to the communities), and need to be adapted accordingly. The reviewed DRM mainstreaming
models are consistently aligned with the disaster risk reduction strategies formulated by the DRM authorities of their
respective countries.

The need for stakeholder participation is a well-established approach in development work. Its main tenet is
that stakeholders should be meaningful participants of development at every stage of the process. In fact, for
mainstreaming to really take place, DRM plans should represent a consensus among stakeholders and should be
a product that is owned by these same stakeholders. Outside-driven plans have little chance to get implemented.
Through this approach, stakeholders influence and share control over decisions that affect them and their
resources. A list of such stakeholders may include concerned government institutions at all levels, non-government
organizations (NGOs), community-based organizations (CBOs), the academia, the media, and citizens themselves.
In essence, the stakeholders drive the development process by participating and deciding in the planning, design,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the project. In this process, they are guided by experts and specialists
who provide technical and scientific inputs needed for sound and informed decision-making. With this, participation
does not only ensure stakeholders’ ownership but also encourage commitment. In general, the reviewed models
emphasize multi-stakeholder participation at every stage of the DRM planning process. They also recognize the
relevance of the participatory process as an enabling communication mechanism.

Table 2, on the other hand, summarizes the resource requirements of the ten DRM tools discussed here.
Financial and resource requirement are crucial factors for assessing the implementation potential of a particular
DRM mainstreaming model. Oftentimes, the availability of resources dictates the scope of DRM mainstreaming
implementation and the strategies or tools that will be utilized. Acknowledging this, most of the shortlisted DRM
models signified the use of available resources and the development or enhancement of existing resources whether
it be financial/material or human resource. While some DRM mainstreaming models identified low-cost tools and
strategies for their implementation, others opted for more sophisticated and higher-cost tools or mechanisms.
 

12
 Name of Financial resources Human resources
DRM Tool requirement requirement

Disaster Resistant Requires budget for IEC, community Hazard and Risk Assessment
Community (DRC) Model meetings and consultations and for Experts, other technical people,
(1997) acquiring HAZUS as the tool for local managers, working groups
hazard and risk assessment

Emergency Risk Requires budget for risk analysis, Risk Manager, technical working
Management Process review/monitoring, communication, group, local managers
and for acquiring systems or tools for
documentation (GIS, etc)

SOPAC-DMU’s Requires budget for establishing Technical people; local

Comprehensive Hazard advocacy team, consultations/ managers, working groups
and Risk Management meetings, capacity-building,
(CHARM) Programming information technology, and
Approach communication

Disaster Risk Management Requires budget for Risk Managers/DRM Specialists,

Framework capacity-building/ strengthening and working groups, local managers
IEC

Total Disaster Risk Budget for research, Risk Managers/DRM Specialists,

Management (TDRM) consultation/meetings, and for Technical Working Group, local
acquiring risk management managers
methodology

Disaster Risk Reduction Requires budget for Risk Managers/DRM Specialists,

Master Plan (DRRMP, capacity-building, research, technical working groups, local
2004) consultations/meetings, and for working groups
acquiring technical tools for risk
assessment and documentation

Guidelines for Requires budget for DRM Experts, technical working

Mainstreaming Disaster consultation/meetings, IEC, groups, local managers
Risk Assessment in capacity-building on DRR for local
Development (2004) development managers

Bangladesh Budget for knowledge management, DRM specialists, Local managers,

Mainstreaming of Disaster capacity-building, and IEC working groups
Risk Reduction in Poverty
Reduction Strategy
Programming (PRSP)

Mainstreaming Disaster Requires budget for DRM Experts, technical working

Risk Management in consultation/meetings, IEC, groups, local managers
Development (MDRD) capacity-building on DRR for local
development managers

Risk Analysis Model Requires budget for acquiring risk DRM Experts, technical working
analysis tools/methods, technical groups, local managers
group meetings/consultations, IEC,
capacity-building

Table 2. Summary of DRM Mainstreaming Tools and Their Resource Requirements for
Implementation (EMI, 2012)

13
Linking Urban Resilience and
DRR Mainstreaming

The concept of resilience originated in the fields of ecological and social studies, and has since been re-appropriated
and reframed by a variety of disciplines, ranging from psychology to disaster risk management. It has gained
considerable momentum as a concept in DRM within the last few years, as a rallying vision and a common objective
for reducing disaster risks.

There have since been numerous attempts to define and operationalize resilience at the urban level. Recent research
on urban resilience emphasizes the need to view resilience as a long-term transformational process, by which a city
is permanently adapting and evolving in front of different stresses and shocks, rather than just a policy outcome
derived from ready-made, bullet point solutions. Urban resilience research also posits that cities, as “systems of
systems”, must constantly adopt a systemic approach to prepare for, cope with and bounce back from disasters
(preferably in more robust terms than what they were before the event). It is increasingly recognized that siloed and
asset-based approaches fail to properly deal with the risk of multiple failures . Last but not least, recent research also
stresses the need for an integrated and coordinated multi-level governance of DRM schemes.

Resilience is defined as “the capacity of a system, community or society potentially exposed to

hazards to adapt, by resisting or changing in order to reach and maintain an acceptable level
of functioning and structure. This is determined by the degree to which the social system is
capable of organising itself to increase this capacity for learning from past “disasters for better
future protection and to improve risk reduction measures” – UNISDR

“The ability of individuals, communities and states and their institutions to absorb and recover
from shocks, whilst positively adapting and transforming their structures and means for living
in the face of long-term changes and uncertainty” – OECD

“The ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from and more successfully adapt to
adverse events” – National Academies, USA

14
How can DRR mainstreaming serve to build disaster resilient cities?

Systems analysis theory constitutes the analytical foundation of mainstreaming. Risk represents a new source of
external environmental elements that have the potential to affect part or whole of the “system”. The system is
defined by the context of the societal, physical and institutional structures that are being analyzed. For example,
in the case of a city, the “system” is represented by city government’s jurisdictional mandate within its geo-political
boundaries and its relationships and obligations to its citizens, communities and the higher and lower levels of
government. The city undertakes a certain number of functions (i.e. urban planning, engineering, public works,
public safety, environment, social services, etc.) and regulates others (i.e., transport, commerce, utilities, etc.). Risk
emanating from external hazards can affect any of these functions. The ‘system’ can progressively adjust itself
through various policies and actions (i.e., legal, institutional, organizational, physical, educational, transformational)
to build greater resilience against the experienced and perceived risks. Fundamental to systems analysis, the system
acts as a whole it order to understand the risks involves and effectively adapts and strengthen its structures and
processes against these risks.

Figure 3. Systems theory underlying the concept of mainstreaming. Cities are considered as a system evolving,
adapting and transforming depending on external elements (i.e., risk) and resources (i.e., capacity) available to
them or received from external sources (adapted from Slade Beard, personal communication, 2015)

Looking at cities as a system provides for rational and effective planning and allocation of resources. Ultimately, the
outcome of these allocations is to achieve greater prevention and mitigation of risks and to enhance capabilities for
emergency and recovery interventions. This is the essence of mainstreaming.

The application of the mainstreaming concept is guided by three types of goals:

Reducing vulnerability and risks to potential hazards for the whole system (i.e., institutional,
human, ecological and physical),
Avoiding the appearance of new risks, and
Strengthening the capacity of institutions and communities to all types of hazards.

In practice mainstreaming translates into a cross-sectoral, participatory, and scientifically-based methods for setting
policy, determining action, and allocating resources for risk reduction. Sound DRR mainstreaming practice paves the
way for a more integrated, efficient and resourceful city.

15
Figure 4. Relationship between the goals and qualities of DRR Mainstreaming and Urban Resilience

Figure 4 illustrates in general terms the relationship between the goals and qualities of DRR mainstreaming and
urban resilience. It shows how the goals of DRR mainstreaming links with the goals of urban resilience. It also shows
how the qualities of DRR mainstreaming aligns with the qualities of urban resilience.

DRR mainstreaming challenges goes beyond traditional approaches in disaster risk management. It is based on
the recognition that the reduction of risks is a cross-cutting issue that should be owned not by a single entity
or department, but by all sectors and services at the city level. As such, it challenges both siloed and single-risk
management by bringing in a holistic perspective of DRM, which accounts for both the systemic nature of urban
risks and the potential cascading effects of disasters in urban environments. It also goes beyond the emergency
response-oriented DRM scheme by providing a building block for prevention and mitigation, which ultimately
allows to “break the cycle” of disasters. Hence, DRR mainstreaming is a proactive step towards the establishment of
resilient cities, taking action to identify, prevent and mitigate all types of risks.

DRR mainstreaming at the local level instills resilience in the day-to-day operations of city services.
Indeed, DRR mainstreaming is about plugging in risk-informed policies, objectives and norms into the decision-
making process of various municipal services, including land use and urban development planning, construction
and building licensing, environmental management, and social welfare. Mainstreaming DRR is ensured through the
incorporation of data and information on hazards and their associated risk and vulnerabilities into local development
plans; as well as integrating DRR objectives into the day-to-day operations of these services. Appropriate training of
officials on both disaster risk reduction and governance parameters, coupled with awareness raising and education
campaigns among the public (especially the most vulnerable populations) is also a major factor in the success of DRR
mainstreaming.

16
Disaster risk reduction is a cross-cutting issue and is therefore aimed at reaching and mobilizing stakeholders and
resources across scales, sectors and institutions, both vertically (national government and agencies) and horizontally
(local governments, civil society, the academe, private sector, media, and community based organizations). This
approach is embedded in a systemic vision of cities, whereby the resilience of each of the city components accounts
for the resilience of the system as a whole. This should ultimately serve the purpose of guiding urban development
in a risk-sensitive manner, so as to reduce the vulnerability of both human and infrastructural systems in the city, and
hence the capacity of those systems to cope with and rebound from disasters.

Various examples have been proposed for achieving resilience that relate directly to the concept of mainstreaming.

The 10 Essentials for Making Cities Resilient campaign (UNISDR, 2013) identifies and provides ten guidelines in
disaster risk reduction so as to achieve resilience at the local level, including institutional/legal changes conducive to
DRR, risk assessment measures or educational programs.

Similarly, OECD (2014) provides a resilience systems analysis methodology that is intended to produce the following
outcomes:

• A shared view of the risk landscape that people face

• An understanding of the broader system that people need for their all-round well-being
• An analysis of how the risk landscape affects the key components of the well-being system, which
components are resilient, which are not, and why
• A shared understanding of power dynamics, and how the use or misuse of power helps or hinders people’s
access to the assets they need to cope with shocks; and
• Based on all of that, a shared vision of what needs to be done to boost resilience in the system, and how to
integrate these aspects into policies, strategies and development efforts at every layer of society.

The engineering firm of ARUP, makes the point that the aim of building urban resilience reaches beyond asset-
based, single hazard approaches in disaster risk management, and advocates for a systemic, all-hazard preparedness
and mitigation approach, thus bridging the gap between DRM and adaptation (ARUP, 2014).

A publication of the Asia Development Bank contends that achieving resilience envisions a transformational process
that works towards securing investments (financial and human) that reform core planning processes of government.
Such investments come from the conventional financing schemes (i.e., government budgeting process) as well as
innovative financing schemes (e.g., Cat Bonds or other mechanisms to transfer risk to the capital market) that cover
residual risk (ADB, 2013).

17
Table 3. Scope, Definition, and Approach to Resilience of Select Organizations

18
 Building Urban
Resilience
through DRM
Master Planning
 Building Urban Resilience
Through DRM Master Planning
Disaster Risk Management Master Planning (DRMMP) was developed by EMI to support local-level long term
planning and programming of disaster risk reduction activities. The DRMMP is founded on the concept of
mainstreaming as extensively discussed in the previous chapter. The objective is to optimize resources by defining
and distributing roles and responsibilities across various stakeholders at all levels of government with a full
recognition of the external risks characteristics. It provides opportunity for local authorities to systematically and
rigorously identify programs, projects and activities (PPA) aimed at reducing risk caused by natural and man-made
hazards and to define processes for implementing these PPAs. The DRMMP process is designed to align with and
inform existing core planning processes of local governments.

The DRMMP methodology follows similar principles and processes as other more conventional planning processes,
i.e., land use planning; namely:

• It is structured and systematic and follows a consistent step-by-step methodology;

• It is science-based and data-driven;
• It is multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary;
• It applies to all hazards, and;
• It is participatory and consensus-driven.

It is these particular principles that provide strength and soundness

to the DRMMP. They provide a common vision to all stakeholders,
a realistic road map for decisions and actions, an indication of the
priorities, and a mechanism for programming and budgeting.

EXAMPLE: ISTANBUL There are two important elements of EMI’s DRMMP approach.
Disaster Risk Management Master First, the DRMMP allows for meaningful participation of
Planning was first implemented in stakeholders. By design, the DRMMP provides stakeholders with
Istanbul after the 1999 Marmara an opportunity for learning the concepts of hazard, vulnerability
Earthquake, leading to the and risk and to understand their relevance to planning. It develops
development of the Istanbul
consensus among them on the trade-offs and the rationales for
Earthquake Master Plan (2002), which
has been the basis for DRR investments
investment in urban resilience. With their engagement in the
by the Istanbul Metropolitan development of the plan, the stakeholders not only provide
Municipality (IMM) essential knowledge to the plan but acknowledge their roles and
responsibilities in the implementation of the plan, thus taking
ownership.
Second, DRMMP puts in place a structured approach for setting up a DRM system that is based on science and
provides the basis for investments in DRR programs and projects. The development of the DRMMP requires a
strong emphasis on data and science. It includes collecting evidence to understand the DRM context and situation,
assessing the inherent risks of the city, developing an information database on disaster risk management, and
identifying the gaps and needs.

20
There are also drawbacks of the master planning approach. Like any other methodology, the master planning approach
has some drawbacks and may not be the appropriate methodology for all cases. The following can be mentioned:

• Longer and tedious planning timeline. Completing a DRM master plan for a major city could take on average
about 18 months for a full team of specialists.
• Engagement of stakeholders and policy makers. The success of the master plan is hinged on an active
engagement of the stakeholders and the full commitment of the policy makers. These are not always achievable.
• Outcome could be overwhelming. The master plan addresses fundamental aspects such as legislative bases as
well as core processes of government. The outcome may be a long list of policies, programs and actions to
be implemented. Such outcomes require long term commitment and resources. These are not always easy to
secure particularly among countries with weak governance systems.
• Implementation may require new vision and change of business-as-usual attitude (i.e., resistance to change)
• Control processes could be lacking

Early Application of the Disaster Risk Management Master Planning

for Metro Manila, Philippines

In 2004, EMI partnered with several institutions to produce the Disaster Risk Management Master Plan for Metro
Manila6. Figure 5 below shows the early framework of the DRMMP that was applied for Metro Manila.

Figure 5. Early Framework of the DRMMP

6
Main partners include Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
(PHIVOLCS), Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Research Centre, Pacific Disaster Centre-Hawaii, Kobe University, and the Cities of Makati,
Marikina, and Quezon.

21
The Metro Manila DRMMP process resulted in the development of a menu of actions to be prioritized. This menu,
through a stakeholder validation, was further streamlined and organized into ten (10) action plans which comprise
the overall master plan for disaster risk reduction. These ten action items are:

1. Strengthen Metropolitan Manila Disaster Coordinating Council;

2. Promote Adoption of Disaster Management Ordinance by each City and Municipality;
3. Promote the reorganization and revitalization of city/municipal and barangay (county/ward) Disaster
Coordinating Councils;
4. Institutionalize Local Government Framework and Financing for Disaster Management;
5. Enhance lateral and vertical inter-agency and inter-governmental communication and coordination;
6. Enhance legal basis for Disaster Risk Management at national level by updating/replacing Presidential
Decree 1566;
7. Promote policies that encourage implementation of disaster risk reduction measures; identify mechanisms
for mainstreaming DRM into key city functions;
8. Promote local government mitigation planning through use of existing planning tools;
9. Conduct training needs assessment and develop capacity building programs; and
10. Strengthen barangay level preparedness for disaster response and relief.

The development of the DRMMP for Metro Manila brought to fore the importance of mainstreaming by focusing
action and decision at local government level. It triggered subsequent policy discussions among the stakeholders and
was critical in influencing the passage of Republic Act 10121 (RA 10121) or the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction
and Management Act of 2010. The said Act shifts action, decision, and resources on DRR from the national to the
local government which is key to DRM mainstreaming.

To date, the DRMMP has already been applied to eight (8) cities7 six of which are shown in the illustration of DRMMP
milestones below.

7
This include Istanbul (Turkey), Kathmandu (Nepal), Metro Manila (Philippines), Amman (Jordan), Mumbai (India), Pasig City (Philippines),
Quezon City (Philippines), Dhaka (Bangladesh)

22
 PROCESS
TO IMPLEMENT
THE DRMMP
Process to Implement
the DRMMP
EMI’s DRMMP is a road map for a proactive DRM approach, one that recognizes disasters are not inevitable but
result when development is not resilient. By explicitly incorporating DRM concepts into existing planning processes
and projects, communities can minimize harms, reduce losses, and recover more quickly.

The DRMMP road map follows four phases:

• Phase 1: Organization and Preparation

• Phase 2: Diagnosis and Analysis
• Phase 3: Plan Development
• Phase 4: Plan Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation

Figure 6 illustrates the workflow of these four phases. The entire process can be completed in 12-24 months,
depending on the elements that need to be covered, although implementation may continue long after the plan
is established. The next four sections walk through the phases of the DRMMP, explaining necessary steps and
providing examples from cities that have already created DRMMPs using this process.

Figure 6. Latest DRMMP Framework which indicates the workflow, process, and elements for developing the DRMMP. March 2014

24
 Phase 1: Organization and Preparation
Creating a successful DRMMP requires significant preparation and pre-planning. As discussed in the sections above,
a successful DRMMP will involve numerous stakeholders from government and civil society. This takes time and
organization. A successful DRMMP will also be based on data and rigorous analysis, which also requires time and
organization. The first step in creating a DRMMP is therefore to establish the organizational framework within
which the planning will occur. The steps of Phase 1 are below and discussed.

• Establish formal agreement with city government on the

1 participatory process

2 • Identify governance sectors to be included in the DRMMP

• Set up a Project Management Team (PMT) - identify

3 members, clarify expectations, and develop workplan

• Make sure assignments are understood and timelines
are agreed on

• Have the city top executive (i.e., Mayor) issue an official

4 directive endorsing the project and assigning staff from
relevant city departments to work on the project
• Identify relevant external stakeholders (government, private
5 sector, civil society organizations, academia, media, etc.)
• Organize stakeholders into functional groups, such as -
Advisory Committee, Scientific Consortium, Focus Groups.
Write terms of reference for each group.

• Assess team and stakeholder knowledge gaps

6 • Hold educational workshops and outreach on concepts of risk,
vulnerability, and DRM

• Collaboratively identify data needs, project challenges,

7 project expectations with the stakeholders
• Create shared data management system and collect data

Step 1: Establish formal agreement with city government

DRM master planning will require coordination with all functional units of the city government. This can be best
facilitated if the Mayor or Executive Officer officially and formally endorses the planning effort and supports the
participatory process. An official directive helps to secure participation of stakeholders and technical specialists. It
also guarantees that city officers will take the process seriously, see it as a part of their official duties, take ownership
of their role, and mobilize resources. Appendix 1 provides an example of the official order from Quezon City in the
Philippines.

25
Step 2: Identify governance sectors to be included
The Project Team’s first task is to identify the scope of the DRMMP. This means identifying the governance sectors
that need to be included in the master planning process. This should include core city planning processes and public
services. Examples include:

• Urban development and land use planning

• Construction controls, codes and standards
(i.e., engineering and public works)
• Public safety
• Emergency management
EXAMPLE: MUMBAI
• Shelter and housing (including slums and informal settlements)
The Municipal Corporation of Greater
• Social services Mumbai regulates the delivery of
• Health water, wastewater, storm drainage,
• Education and transportation systems, so these
• Water systems were included in the DRM project.
• Waste water and storm water systems The project also addressed shelter
• Electricity and power systems and housing because 60% of the city
• Transportation population lives in slums, so this was a
• Solid waste management major issue for city resilience.
• Telecommunications

Further elements can be added depending on the jurisdictional responsibility of the city. This also depends on what
is most relevant to local authorities in terms of priority, access to data, and availability of resources and expertise.
Some of these sectors may be governed by private companies or private-public cooperatives. To the extent
practical, these sectors should also be involved, as they play a significant role in the overall vulnerability of the city.

Two cross-cutting elements that support the whole planning process should be integrated. They are:

• Training and Capacity Building (TCB)

• Information Education and Communication (IEC)

These elements refer to the ability of city government (and private and private-public cooperatives) to build
the capacity to participate meaningfully in the development of the DRRMP and to eventually take charge of its
implementation. The TCB component trains the stakeholders involved in the project (using the Focus Groups as
the mechanism for training), which are also the resources to gather, assess, and disseminate information both within
their respective functional units but eventually to the public at large. These abilities are critical. City officials who
understand the concepts of risk, vulnerability, and DRM are more likely and more able to mainstream DRM into
their existing duties. Similarly, external stakeholders and citizens who are aware of the risks and the disaster risk
reduction efforts that are being taken are more likely and more able to support those efforts.

Step 3: Set up Project Management Team

The Project Management Team (PMT) is made up of the project managers, technical experts, and specialists who
collectively have the competencies to develop the DRMMP. The PMT should collectively develop a workplan, assign
tasks to groups and individual members. The PMT works under the leadership of a Team Leader supported by
a Project Manager or Project Coordinator. Practice Leaders take on the responsibility to develop the component
under their responsibility since they are the subject matter experts in their respective sectors. The PMT is supported
by technical, administrative, finance and logistical teams who facilitate all the development process, reporting, and
operational activities.

26
In principle, the PMT is organized horizontally and is more functional than hierarchical. The PMT adheres to the
vision of the participatory process, recognizes the importance of every member’s contribution to the project, as well
as the need to validate assumptions, findings and recommendations with the stakeholders. It is multi-disciplinary,
and coordinates meaningful interaction between the city’s local experts, outside consultants, and national or regional
government organizations.

Members of the PMT develop an in-depth understanding of the project context, constraints, expectations, and fully
assume their role in the project. It is important that members understand their roles and assignments and that all
members agree on and are responsible for upholding a timeline for implementation.

Step 4: Issue official directive and assign city staff to the

Project Management Team
Once the relevant governance sectors have been identified, along with their regulatory authorities, it is necessary to
involve those regulatory authorities in the planning process. This can be achieved informally, but it is often most
effective to request the Mayor or Executive Officer to issue an official directive endorsing the scope of the project
and assigning personnel from the relevant city departments to work with the project. This ensures that the Mayor
or Executive Officer is not only aware of the scope of the project but also endorses it. It communicates to city
departments that participation is expected, and it facilitates cooperation. Similarly, he/she can send official invitation
to higher level relevant government agencies to participate in the project. The engagement of the national authorities
is crucial in completing a credible plan that can have the support of the national government agencies.

Step 5: Identify and organize relevant external stakeholders

The participatory approach to develop the DRMMP ensures that there is understanding and commitment to
implement the project. An integral strategy in developing the DRMMP is to transfer knowledge, build local capacity,
and consolidate ownership of the plan. These are the requirements to make sure that the conditions for eventual
implementation of the plan are built right from the start. This will only happen if there is official commitment from
the city to support the project, not as a consulting work in the conventional sense, but as a collaborative project
between the city and the PMT where the plan is the product of the stakeholders themselves and represents an
opportunity for the city to build its internal capacity and competency on DRM.

The goal of the DRMMP is to develop the ability of government and non-government stakeholders to take
ownership of implementing the plan. In Steps 3 and 4, the Project Team identified relevant stakeholders within
the city government and relevant private and private-public sectors. In Step 5, the PMT should identify a broader
group of relevant stakeholders, including, but not limited to, civil society, community leaders, regional and national
government agencies, private sector, media, academe, and international organizations. DRMMPs rely on broad
stakeholder involvement in a participatory process. It is therefore useful to identify and engage more, rather than
fewer, stakeholders, on this process.

The participation of numerous stakeholders will increase buy-in for the project and improve the long-term
implementation of the DRMMP. However, it requires organization to be effective. From experience, it is effective
to organize the stakeholders into three different groups, although other organizing structures may also work well
depending on the number of stakeholders and the particular governance structure of the city:

EXAMPLE: MUMBAI
In the Disaster Risk Reduction in Greater Mumbai Project, the Advisory Committee alone
had more than 100 members, representing government agencies, civil society, technical
agencies, and private sector organizations.

27
Steering Committee

The Steering Committee is a key mainstreaming instrument of the project. It is composed of policy and decision-
making officials who are assigned to the project as representatives of their organizations. It provides the official
platform through which to share project issues, findings, and accomplishments that members can then communicate
to their home institutions. The committee is intended to be a two-way communication channel to raise awareness and
generate support within the policy and decision-making institutions. Key decisions can be submitted to the Steering
Committee for discussion and resolution. One of the goals is to raise awareness on risk, vulnerability, and DRM,
and transform the members of the Steering Committee into advocates who can similarly raise awareness with their
institutions and push for pro-active policies on DRM and future mainstreaming efforts.

Scientific Consortium

The Scientific Consortium is a small group of local experts who have reached prominence and recognition in the
relevant fields addressed by the project. The members are selected based on their technical and subject matter
expertise, rather than policy-making roles. They advise on the validity of the scientific data and approach and will
help other members of the project understand the scientific basis for decisions. They can help reach consensus on
the scientific parameters of the project. Members should be drawn from a range of disciplines appropriate to the
city’s specific needs, but may include:

• Seismologists STEERING COMMITTEE

• Engineers and architects
• Geologists
• Geophysicists
• Hydrologists
TEAM LEADER
• Meteorologists

Scientific Consortium
Multi-Disciplinary Representation of Local Experts
Project Manager Local Project Manager
• Land use, urban and regional planners
Governance, EM; GIS-ICT,LUP, IEC
Focus Groups

Project Coordinator Local Project Coordinato

r
• Disaster risk managers
SENIOR ADVISOR/PEER REVIEWER
• Lawyers
• Businessmen ELEMENT PRACTICE LEADER LOCAL INVES
TIGATOR
• Public administrators Practice Leader Local Experts
GOVERNANCE
• Risk analysts ICT-GIS Practice Leader Local Experts
• Environmental managers HVRA Practice Leader Local Experts
Emergency Mgmt. Practice Leader Local Experts
• Geographic information systems Land Use Planning Practice Leader Local Experts
(GIS) analysts Info., Educ. Comm Practice Leader Local Experts
• Demographers
• Statisticians
• Social scientists

Figure 7. A Model for a Project Organizational Structure for Grouping the Project
Management Team with the Representation of the Stakeholders
Focus Groups

Focus Groups can be organized in a variety of ways, but they are composed of city officials, other government
officials, local practitioners, researchers, community leaders, and civil society organizations. They may include
mid-level managers and specialists from the various departments and offices of the city government. They are
most often organized along the sectors identified in the DRMMP (e.g., Urban Planning, Emergency Management
Transportation, Water, Housing, etc.). Through the Focus Groups, stakeholders are able to participate in all aspects
of development of the DRMMP, provide input and suggest solutions. They also validate assumptions, data, findings,
and recommendations. In this way, Focus Groups provide the main forum for discussion and development. They
are tools to develop a common understanding of the problems and to build consensus on specific elements of the
DRMMP. They also provide an opportunity for stakeholders to enhance their core competencies on DRM.

28
Step 6: Assess knowledge gaps and educate stakeholders
Participation is integral to any problem solving process. In urban DRR, solutions are best reached through consensus
where those who have a stake in risk reduction are provided opportunities to contribute solutions to reduce risk.
However, participation in urban DRR can only be made meaningful if stakeholders understand their risks. In most
cases, there is a gap in how risk is understood and interpreted by various stakeholders with diverse backgrounds
and oftentimes competing interests. Once there is shared understanding of risk, stakeholders can contribute to the
work at hand in terms of data collection and validating findings and interpretations of risk assessments that are
fundamental to any risk reduction program.

One major step is therefore to assess the knowledge level of the stakeholders and to provide the necessary tools and
information to help educate stakeholders and build a common understanding of the problem. This can often be
best achieved through the Focus Groups. Examples of training and workshop activities that EMI conducted with the
stakeholders include:

• Fundamentals of Disaster Risk Management

• International Standards of Practice in Emergency Management including Table Top Exercises for Response
Planning
• Risk Analysis
• Legal and Institutional Arrangements in DRM
• Creating, Understanding, and Updating Disaster Risk Geospatial Databases
• Mobilizing Stakeholders for DRM
• Risk Sensitive Land Use Planning and Urban Development
• Gender and Disaster Risk Reduction
• Participatory Approaches to Urban DRR

Step 7: Collaboratively collect data

The development of the DRMMP requires a strong emphasis on data and science. It includes collecting evidence
to understand the DRM context and situation, assessing the inherent risks of the city, developing an information
database on disaster risk management, and identifying the gaps and needs. This process can take many forms, but
there are at least two key sub-steps.

Establish a shared data management system

One of the early decisions the PMT and Focus Groups need to make is who will have access to the data collected
during the project. It is important that all government stakeholders, at a minimum, have access. Although it would
be beneficial for all stakeholders to have access, there may be security reasons why government agencies would
not wish to share data with non-government organizations. The PMT and Focus Groups need to decide who will
have what level of access to the information, and a system needs to be established to facilitate data sharing and
security. Knowledge-sharing is needed to ensure that data will be current throughout the process (and after, during
implementation of the DRRMP). It may also benefit other functions of the city8.

Collect relevant data into a DRM Database

Data collection is by all accounts the most challenging task in the project. A significant effort in terms of time and
resources goes into data collection, review, validation and organization into a single DRM database. Structuring and
organizing the data collection process is essential to the success of the project. The team should right from the start
of the project devote necessary resources to use multiple data sources, cross reference data, follow up with various
organizations and develop a data tracking system by which the status of the data collection process can be assessed
at any time and the problem areas identified. The PMT should also be in measure to look at proxies for data where
it is simply impossible to obtain at the required resolution or is not available. When available, data is seldom in digital

8
In addition to facilitating DRM planning, tax mapping provides another motivation for cities to have a centralized database in uniform format.

29
forms (i.e., shape files) that can be readily included in a geographic information system (GIS). Thus, the PMT should
be prepared to put in resources to digitize data and to encode data in standard databases that are GIS-ready.

Data must be collected from relevant city departments, government agencies, and other service providers. This may
be challenging if stakeholders are unwilling to share information. One should be prepared to encounter bureaucratic
hurdles in obtaining the data. The existence of an official endorsement (Step 1), participation in the stakeholder
groups (Step 5), and the establishment of a data sharing mechanism that respects privacy and security concerns
should help encourage stakeholders to provide data.

Data is typically organized at the resolution of the smallest geo-political boundary of the city. This will enable
effective use and management of data by local and sub-local authorities.

Cross-referencing of data is required and is accomplished through a combination of document review and fieldwork.
Fieldwork includes site visits, interviews of local community members, consultations, surveys, workshops, and focus
groups working sessions to engage city residents and gain insights into actual practice. The document review should
be based on an extensive research and should include documents such as:

• Regulations and legal authorities for DRM and emergency management

• Various related acts and regulatory documents establishing local authority, environmental regulation, hazardous
material handling, transport and storage, traffic regulation, etc.
• Building codes
• Land use plans and detailed area plans
• Zoning regulations and other construction control directives
• National legislation on DRM and Emergency Operations
• Disaster risk management plans, contingency plans, etc.

The combination of document review and fieldwork helps the project members understand the gaps that may exist
between policy and practice. The table below provides an example of the type of information that is collected.

Sample Disaster Risk Geospatial Database Collected

Data Requirement Scale

• Geospatial references, such as geo-political City level
boundaries, digital elevation data, land-use land-
cover data, surface elevation data,
• Built Environment, such as land use plans and District and City Levels
detailed area plans, building data, transportation,
public facilities, and informal settlements , etc.)
• Emergency Support Functions (such as police and District/neighborhood levels
fire stations, evacuation centers, hospitals and health
centers

• Socio-economic data (such as census by district, District and City Levels

property tax reporting and household demographics)

Validate Data with Stakeholder Focus Groups

To ensure accuracy and reliability of the information collected, it is validated and cross-checked with the Focus
Groups. This ensures that there is consensus agreement on the completeness and validity of data. It is also part of
the process of building ownership not just of the outputs but of the process. Lack of access to data is a systemic
problem in developing countries and a major impediment to the advancement of knowledge. Figure 8 provides
an example of how the Focus Groups participated in the validation of the GIS capacity needs assessment done in
the Bangladesh Urban Earthquake Resilience Project (BUERP) to put in place the initial structures for DRM data
sharing in the country.

30
 Figure 8. Method for ensuring accuracy and reliability of information collected for DRMMP

Phase 2: Diagnosis, Situational and

Consequential Analyses
Once the organizational framework has been established, the relevant stakeholders and the process of data has
advanced, the next step in the DRMMP is to analyze the current situation (i.e., undertake a diagnosis) along all
the sectors considered in the DRMMP. This includes undertaking a comprehensive hazard, vulnerability and risk
assessment for the considered hazards (i.e., earthquake, flood, storm surge, and possibly others). The objective is
to establish a comprehensive “Risk Profile’ for the city reflecting the “current situation”. This diagnosis is then
reviewed, shared with, and validated by the stakeholders (i.e., Steering Committee, Focus Groups, and Scientific
Consortium) to reach a common understanding and consensus on the current DRM situation in the city.

The parameters of hazard, vulnerability and risk are then introduced to establish the gaps. This is termed as
“Consequential Analysis”. Through workshops, consultations, and hands-on exercises, the stakeholders are guided
through analysis to discuss the relationships between hazard-vulnerability-risk on one hand, and the particular sector
that is being analyzed. These gaps are prioritized and rationalized (i.e., What’s creating the gap? Is it a regulatory gap
or a capacity gap? What are the potential consequences of the gap? How can it be closed? Who will be in charge?
etc.). An example of a document prepared by the PMT to guide stakeholders in the consequential analysis is shown
in Figure 9. On the left hand side, the various hazards are listed and on the right hand side some potential (generic
impacts) are indicated. The stakeholders can do a similar exercise to assess detailed impact on various elements (i.e.
population, economic activity, physical resources, access to social services, emergency management, etc.) from their
own perspective.

The situational and consequential analysis are the most technically demanding steps requiring an analytical approach
and in-depth preparation for the engagement of the stakeholders. The exact methodology of analysis may vary.
Several methods of analysis are identified here, and each provides a different piece of the overall risk profile. The
Project Management Team may choose to use different pieces based on the expertise of their team and the city
capacities and needs.

31
1 • Conduct Situational Analysis of Urban Resilience
Elements:

• Analyze legal and institutional arrangements for DRM

• Analyze land use planning and urban development
policy and practice
• Analyze emergency management systems
• Analyze other urban resilience elements such as water
and sanitation, transportation, health, shelter, and others
(as included in the DRMMP)

2 • Conduct Urban Risk Analysis

• Conduct hazard, vulnerability, capacity, and risk
assessment
• Develop City Risk Profile

3 • Validate results of the Situational Analysis and Risk

Analysis with stakeholders
• Ensure results are understood and group has consensus
• Conduct Consequential Analysis to interpret results,
identify and document the gaps. Achieve consensus with
the stakeholders.

Figure 9. Example of guidance document used for consequential analysis.

32
Step 1: Conduct Situational Analysis of Urban Resilience Elements
Analyze Legal and Institutional Arrangements for DRM

The DRMMP process is anchored on the legal and institutional arrangements that define the geo-political boundaries
and the mandate of the concerned planning authority (i.e., the local government), its jurisdictional responsibility and
the potential elements of the plan. An in-depth analysis of the legal and institutional context is essential in providing
legitimacy and credibility to the plan and in avoiding potential jurisdictional or authority conflicts. Government
institutions cannot act or allocate resources unless it is within a legal framework.

This can involve several types of analyses and generate several outputs, including:
• A review of the laws, acts, and other legal instruments that affect DRM and establish DRM mandates
among various institutions. Note that such review could determine conflicts between various Acts (e.g., local
government Act and DRM Act), which should be pointed out.
• A network analysis that shows the organizational chart of the DRM undertaking in the city with key agencies
and their relationships.
• A functional map that indicates functions, roles and responsibilities of each organization in the DRM process.
• Consequential analysis to identify gaps (i.e. impediments, road blocks, etc.) in the legal and institutional process
to enable DRM.

The results are shared and validated with the stakeholders through focus group exercises to ensure that the DRM
organization is understood by all concerned agencies and officials. As explained earlier, the Consequential Analysis
is anchored on stakeholders’ involvement. Gaps, strengths, opportunities, challenges are also identified during the
consequential analysis using tools such as SWOC (Strength-Weaknesses-Opportunities and Challenges), Future
Search, or other similar techniques.

An example of network analysis is shown in Figure 10. The figure indicates the relationship at the national, district10
and local level. Entities indicated with a red border are nodal agencies receiving and providing information from
various sources. The identification of these nodal agencies is relevant in the organization of an effective DRM
system. Note that these nodal agencies could be located at various levels of government.

Figure 10. Network representation indicating relationship of DRM stakeholders in Dhaka. Source: EMI, 2013.

10
In Bangladesh District is a larger and higher level of government organization that Local (i.e., typically cities). There are exceptions such as
the Dhaka City Corporation, which has a special status. Wards are lower level government entities and are enclosed within a city.
33
Analyze Land Use Planning and Urban Development Policy and Practice

Land use and urban development planning practice, processes (both formal and informal), tools and outputs in
the context of the laws, standards and regulations, administrative and planning structures (political and technical)
and systems are reviewed, examined and documented. This includes looking into implementation, control and
enforcement processes and how general land use policy directives are translated into more detailed plans and finally
into land use management instruments such as zoning regulation, construction control provisions, or building
permitting processes. Land use directives are also the basis for urban planning which establishes programs, projects
and services within the city. Enforcement processes for construction codes and standards, and building permitting
process are reviewed and documented in detail. All these parameters are documented to be later analyzed using
the risk reduction lens with the critical goal of identifying gaps and means to close these vulnerability gaps in the
development of the Consequential Analysis. The latter is undertaken by conventional sectors of planning to see
how risk reduction elements are being integrated or not integrated in the planning system, project approval, and
construction practice. Figure 11 provides the framework for analyzing whether land use plans have incorporated risk
in their process and content.

Mainstreaming Conventional Disaster Risk

Process Planning Process Reduction Parameters
Mobilization of Data Collection & Multi-Hazard Assessment
stakeholders Situational Analysis
Vulnerability
Awareness and Setting the RSLUP Assessment
Education Vision
Campaign Risk and Capacity
Setting Goals and Assessment
Training and Objectives
Capacity Building Disaster Mgmt
Alternative Development Requirements
Strategies,
Selection of Preferred
Strategies

Legislative and Detailing of Preferred

Admin Process Strategies

Plan Evaluation Formulating Policies &

Review & Adoption implementation Tools

Plan Implementation
and Enforcement

Plan Monitroing and Figure 11. Framework for Risk Sensitive Land Use Planning that can be used in the
Evaluation Consequential Analysis to identify gaps and mainstreaming entry points in the planning
process (EMI, 2012)

34
Analyze Emergency Management Systems

Analyzing emergency management systems of cities requires a review of existing national guidelines and
benchmarking with international standards of practice. It is premised in the notion that to achieve an optimal
emergency operations system, roles, responsibilities, resources and decision-making should be clearly defined. There
has to be an organizational system for levels of government, command, type of operations, and type of authority
that would occur simultaneously to effectively manage disaster events. Communications capabilities need to vertically
link each level of government, achieve a vertical level of command and vertical coordination between operations
centers and types of authorities to avoid confusion.

Figure 12 provides the framework for analyzing emergency management systems of cities. The city-level emergency
response operations is represented by the horizontal, rectangular box across the middle of the diagram – local
authorities perform operational commands through the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), which enables direct
control of the emergency response. The Integrated Emergency Management System typically is comprised of
management nodes at different levels of governance (column 1 from left), requiring communications links between
the site response agencies at the Incident Command Posts (ICPs) with authorities located at the City EOCs (columns
1 and 3). The City EOCs require communications to the national authorities at the National Coordination Center
(columns 1 and 3). This communications capability allows for the required vertical levels of command (column 2),
from tactical at the site of the emergency and operational at the City EOC to strategic at the national level. These
required vertical communications linkages also allow for an integrated response at all levels of government authority,
as depicted in column 4.

Figure 12. Framework for Integrated Emergency Management System. EMI, 2014

The analysis of emergency management systems should also be guided by international standards11. In particular,
the situational and consequential analyses can be systematically undertaken using the categories and criteria adopted
by the Emergency Management Accreditation Program, or EMAP 12. EMAP is a voluntary process based on
standards collaboratively developed by emergency management experts. The evaluation criteria in the standards are
flexible guidelines suited for programs responsible for preventing, preparing for, mitigating against, and coordinating
response and recovery to disasters. EMAP uses a set of 64 standards, which can be grouped into 16 program

(a) International Association of Emergency Management, Certification of Emergency Managers; (b) Emergency Management Accreditation
11

Program (EMAP), Accreditation of Government Programs and Agencies; (c) NFPA 1600-2010, Standards on disaster/emergency
management and business continuity; and (d) ISO 22320-2011, Requirements for Incident Response

12
Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP), Accreditation of Government Programs and Agencies
35
elements by which programs are evaluated. EMAP standards are designed as a tool for continuous improvement
as part of the voluntary process for emergency management programs. Table 4 below lists the EMAP standards
grouped into 16 provisions with simplified descriptions.

EMAP Standards grouped into 16 simplified provisions

1 Program Management 9 Resource Management and Logistics

2 Administration and Finance 10 Mutual Aid
3 Laws and Authorities 11 Communications and Warning
4 Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and 12 Operations and Procedures
Consequence Analysis
5 Hazard Mitigation 13 Facilities
6 Prevention 14 Training
7 Operational Planning 15 Exercises, Evaluations and Corrective Action
8 Incident Management 16 Crisis Communications, Public Education and
Information
Table 4. Summary of EMAP Standards grouped into 16 categories with simplified descriptions.

Analyze Other Urban Resilience Elements

Situational and consequential analyses of other urban resilience elements are conducted to provide the baseline for
understanding the state-of-the-practice in urban DRR. These other elements include water and sanitation, health,
housing and shelter, transportation, and other types of services that the city either provides or regulates. Under the
guidance of the practice leaders, stakeholders go through workshop-type exercises where they determine the gaps
relative to standards for urban resilience. Essentially, stakeholders are presented with the risk parameters which are
contrasted with their current practices. In small group exercises they look at how the current systems and practices
for particular development sectors are responding to the particular hazard and risk parameters, thereby identifying
both strengths and challenges. The exercises can also be supplemented by a series of guide questions to help them
organize their thinking and findings, such as:

• Describe the consequence of the M7.2 earthquake to your sector. Give three.
• What would you do to reduce risk for each consequence you identified? Use one metacard for each
consequence/recommendation.
• Using the information (in layers) in the maps provided to you, identify intersections between hazard and
locations of the following: population, buildings, infrastructure, critical facilities, the economic activities, and
other resources, etc.;
• Identify and describe the elements of your sector likely to be most affected by the hazard.

From these exercises, stakeholders identify initial gaps in the system which then serve as input for the technical
experts. In some instances, establishing the methodology for undertaking the consequential analysis could be quite
elaborate. An example would be for assessing impact on infrastructure (e.g., transportation system, water system,
etc.). In that case, the audience is typically technical (i.e., composed mainly of engineers.). Figure 13 provides
an example of a framework for analyzing the resiliency of the water system for Greater Mumbai. In this case,
the practice leader uses the illustration to explain the various components of the hazard and risk to guide the
stakeholders in their assessment of the potential impacts.

11
From the Building a Disaster Resilient Quezon City Project, the development sectors that were considered include population, economic
activity, social services, emergency management, institutional and land use administration, physical resources.

36
Figure 13. Diagram showing the water system and resiliencies and how they influence community resilience. Taken from the
Disaster Risk Reduction in Greater Mumbai Project. EMI, 2011 (original from Dr. Craig Davis, Los Angeles Power and Water.)

37
Step 2: Conduct Risk Analysis
Conduct hazard vulnerability and risk assessment

The DRMMP is informed by the hazard, vulnerability, and risk parameters which provide the scientific basis for
the plan and ensures that the plan is responding to the objectives of risk reduction and resilience enhancement.
The parameters defining the current practice of the elements of the plan (i.e., sectors) are checked against the risk
parameters to define the gaps and the strategies for improving urban resilience. In its simplest representation, a risk
assessment can be conceived as the convolution of various hazards and the vulnerability/capacity of the various
assets at risk to represent the potential impacts (i.e., damages and losses). This simple representation is shown in
Figure 14 indicating the hazards for earthquake including secondary hazards such as Fire Following.

Figure 14. Simple schematic of risk assessment blocks (representing earthquake hazards)

The hazard, vulnerability and risk parameters are developed by a team of specialists using scientific and engineering
methods. For the earthquake hazard, modeling is typically done by earth scientists (i.e., geologists, seismologists,
geophysicists and geotechnical engineers.) For the flood hazard, it is typically done by meteorologists and
hydrologists. The vulnerability analysis is performed by structural engineers with expertise in the field who develop
so-called fragility functions for the various assets at risk (or exposure data base). Other specialists are also involved
including lifeline vulnerability assessment specialists, GIS specialists, and others.

There are two ways to represent the hazard either deterministically (i.e., one or several scenarios with their described
parameters representing either events that have happened in the past or hypothetical events that are scientifically
valid), or probabilistically (i.e., where multitude of events are simulated each with its magnitude, location and
probability of occurrence.) The outputs are represented by various loss measures associated with each event (either
deterministically or probabilistically defined) that provide information on the distribution of damage and the social,
economic and material losses to the city considering both physical vulnerability and socio-economic vulnerabilities.
For disaster risk management purposes, it is important to define scenarios that represent extreme events (i.e., worse
case scenarios). Experience has shown that it is highly recommended to plan for extreme events that can stress the
existing environment and demonstrate the potential weaknesses. Planning for extreme events can be scaled down
whereas the reverse proposition is not as instructive. The results are presented in various format, discussed and
whenever practical, validated by the stakeholders.

The risk assessment should be done at the highest resolution possible to provide an accurate and reliable
understanding of the risks that can be used by different planners (land use, emergency management, etc.). Various
software packages are available to undertake risk assessment (sometimes also referred to as loss assessment).
Among the public domain packages, the most widely used is the HAZUS Model, which is a multi-hazard model
developed by the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and widely used globally by experts in
risk assessment. The HAZUS model has been adopted to many countries and is considered as the main scientific
reference in the subject. One of the advantages of the HAZUS model is that it has been extensively used, and
hence has benefitted from various calibration and validation exercises. This is very relevant as loss estimation is
highly empirical and thus subject to large uncertainties. A model that has been extensively calibrated offers greater
reliability and accuracy. Other software packages are also available such as the CAPRA model and the GEM Model.
Figure 15 (adopted from HAZUS) provides a diagram showing the application of risk assessments as well as
examples of outputs.
38
 Figure 15. Spatial Representation of Risk Assessments (taken from HAZUS, with illustration from EMI Bangladesh Urban
Earthquake Resilience Project)

The greater the understanding of the risks, the more relevance is given to the master plan. Planners
require high-resolution representation of risk in order to develop pertinent risk management plans.
This is especially true when modeling urban flood hazard. A small difference in elevation or in the
location of the water ways can result in erroneous outputs. Calibration and validation of models
are thus highly relevant. Spatial visualization techniques (such as 3-D maps or video simulations)
should be used to illustrate the outputs from the risk assessments. Figure 16 shows two examples
that demonstrate the need for high resolution maps. The first map delineate the trace of the active
fault and locates the critical facilities and road network with respect to the fault. For zoning purposes
as well as emergency planning purposes, it is critical that the trace of the fault be located on the map
as precisely as possible. The second example illustrates flood susceptibility within a neighborhood.
Here too, it is important to locate the flood areas as accurately as possible. Note that the maps also
indicate the relevant critical facilities, roads (major and minor), open space, and other data relevant for
managing risk.

Figure 16. Examples of high resolution maps for earthquake hazard and flood hazard. This level of resolution is needed for
detailed and meaningful planning purposes.

39
 The HVRA also provides information on “hotspots” which are areas that have the highest risk for the
considered hazards. Through the hotspots, local authorities will know where they should prioritize the
DRR projects. Maps are produced to provide an illustration where the potential problems are highest. They
indicate priorities for planning in terms of where the investments should be for reducing risk and building
resilience that address area-specific issues. An example of hazard mapping and hotspot analysis is provided
in Figure 17.

Figure 17. Earthquake, Flood, and Combined Earthquake and Flood Risk Profiles for Quezon City, Philippines,
Showing Hotspot Districts. 2013

Develop the City Risk Profile

The City Risk Profile organizes all relevant physical, socio-economic, built environment, hazards, vulnerability, and
risk information. It provides a single reference on key information on the hazards and risks from disasters that
cities are exposed to. It also presents an overview of the current state of cities in terms of governance, population,
geography and other components and factors that could contribute to its overall vulnerability or resilience to
disasters. Exposure and hazard information are provided to give readers with key information for understanding risk,
planning for its impacts, and for raising awareness and support to risk reduction.

Figure 18. Examples of City Risk Profiles in Dhaka, Pasig, and Kathmandu

Typically, Steps 1 and 2 above do not happen sequentially but in parallel, i.e. Steps 1 and 2
can start at the same time. However, because of the more rigorous data requirements for the
hazard vulnerability and risk assessment in Step 2, it takes longer to complete than Step 1.

40
 Step 3: Validating and interpreting results with stakeholders

Validating results of the situational analysis requires the use of analytical tools such as the Problem Tree Exercise,
Network Analysis, Organizational Mapping, Comprehensive Gaps Assessment for Emergency Management, DRM
Mainstreaming Framework, Consequential Analysis and others in order to organize the discussion and collect inputs
in a systematic way. These tools allow the it has collected, synthesize, and generate initial findings. Figure 19 below
shows the results of the Problem Tree Exercise with the stakeholders in Kathmandu to develop the DRMMP.

Figure 19. Results of the Problem Tree Exercise to Develop the Kathmandu DRMMP. 2005

41
 For each of the development sectors, programs, projects and activities (PPAs) are identified as concrete actions to
reduce risks and improve resilience. Stakeholders undertake the consequential analysis together with the experts.
The consequential analysis is an inter-active exercise which builds on the situational analysis, but looking at “what-
if ” scenarios aimed at developing options to improve the current practice. Through the consequential analysis12, the
stakeholders achieve an understanding of the impacts of the current practices and define strategies and rationales
for reducing these impacts. They also identify the “entry points” for mainstreaming DRR in each particular
development sector. Table 5 shows an example of the result of a consequential analysis for a magnitude 7.2 to the
Physical Resources Sector of Quezon City, Philippines.

Table 5. Results of Consequential Analysis of a Magnitude 7.2 Earthquake to Physical Resources of Quezon City

12
Consequential Analysis is an analytical exercise used to reinforce understanding of the impacts of the scenario earthquake and flood to the
different planning parameters -population, buildings, facilities, infrastructure and social and economic parameters.

42
 Phase 3: Plan Development
The analyses conducted in Phase 2 should identify the areas of greatest vulnerability for the city and also identify the
legal and institutional framework within with stakeholders can work to address those vulnerabilities. In Phase 3, the
project focuses on identifying potential solutions and creating the DRM Master Plan.

1 • Establish a common vision for city resilience

2 • Identify and prioritize strategies to address vulnerabilities

based on shared vision

• Identify and prioritize programs, projects, and activities for each

3 strategy
• Identify implementing actors, timelines, and budgets for each
program, project or activity

• Formalize the plan

4 • Publicize and conduct outreach

Step 1: Establish a common vision for city resilience

First is the establishment of a vision for resilience and a mission to reduce risk through a visioning exercise13.

Step 2: Identify and prioritize strategies to address vulnerabilities

based on shared vision
This is followed by the development of resilience strategies through the conduct of Strengths-Weaknesses-
Opportunities-Challenges (SWOC) exercise to formulate and prioritize strategies by taking into account key internal
and external elements that may affect the attainment of the resilience vision and mission14. Examples of a disaster
resilient vision for cities that result from the DRM master planning process is found below.

Quezon City’s Vision of a Resilient City

“Quezon City is envisioned to be a Quality City with an empowered and responsive citizenry
who live in a sustainable, well planned, and structurally sound environment with a vibrant
economy under progressive leadership”

Pasig City’s Vision of a Resilient City

“Pasig Green City towards a safer, sustainable, gender responsive and more disaster resilient
community”

13
In Quezon City, the stakeholders took some time to establish consensus around developing the vision for the city. There was a long gridlock
in identifying a common descriptor for the natural environment, around descriptors such as habitable, sustainable, resilient, “clean and green”
14
See Legal and Institutional Arrangements Guidebook, EMI, 2014

43
Step 3: Identify and prioritize programs, projects, and activities for
each strategy
After reaching consensus on the resilience strategies, programs, projects, and activities are then formulated.

Brainstorm programs, projects, and activities

This is translated to identifying a long list of projects and activities that correspond to DRR areas such as response
and relief, prevention and mitigation, preparedness, and recovery and rehabilitation. This also results to the
development of indicative budgets per project to form the initial DRR investment plan of the city.

Prioritize programs, projects, and activities

Apart from listing down and discussing potential investments, stakeholders also prioritize project and activities. This
prioritization process is based on a set of criteria that helps stakeholders focus their attention to interventions that
will have the greatest impact in terms of reducing their risk while taking into account their inherent limitations such
as budget capacity or resource constraints.

Assign responsibilities, timelines, and budgets

For DRM to be successfully implemented, stakeholders must feel ownership and responsibility for the programs,
projects, and activities. Each program, project, and activity should be assigned to a particular stakeholder who will
carry it out. Stakeholders need to be aware of their responsibilities and agree to them. Each item should also have
a timeline by which it will be accomplished, and a budget should be identified so that stakeholders understand the
scope of the effort that will be required.

Projects in the Quezon City DRMMP were prioritized as Immediate-term, Short-term, and Medium-term.
“Immediate-term” projects are “critical” projects that need to be implemented immediately, creates a major liability
to the city if not done, and the most important in order to advance the DRR agenda forward. ‘Short-term” projects
are “important” projects that need to be implemented within 1-3 years, must be done, create the foundation and
infrastructure for DRR, and address significant vulnerability of the city. “Medium-term” projects are “relevant”
projects that need to be implemented in the next 4-6 years, should be done but there is limitation in resources, and
will result to improvements in DRR in the medium to long term.

44
Step 4: Formalize the plan, publish, publicize and conduct outreach
The final form of the DRMMP is then validated. An example of a DRMMP program and its related projects are
shown in Table 6.15

Program 2: Mainstreaming DRR in Land Use Planning and Land Use Management
Mitigation and Prevention Projects Priority1
Formulating a Communications Plan to institutionalize HVRA within Quezon City (with Immediate-
focus on hotspot areas) term
Mainstreaming DRR in the 2010-2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Medium-term
Consultation Workshops for Pilot Project identification and Feasibility of Selected Land Short-term
Use Management Methods for flood and earthquake risk reduction.

Program for improving Quezon City Government’s capacity and expertise in building and Medium-term
infrastructure construction project development permitting, monitoring and evaluation
Restructuring existing M& E program for stakeholder response(s) to and development Short-term
impacts of Quezon City Government’s projects on Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management
Pilot projects on Preferred Land Use Management methods (e.g. development regulations, Short-term
zoning earthquake hazard areas, floodway zoning and set-backs, fire zones)

Table 6. Example of DRMMP program, related projects, and priority ranking of each project

15
In most cases, projects are defined broadly by cities to allow for the possibility of further adjustments in scope.
16
Projects in the Quezon City DRMMP were prioritized as Immediate-term, Short-term, and Medium-term. “Immediate-term”
projects are “critical” projects that need to be implemented immediately, creates a major liability to the city if not done, and
the most important in order to advance the DRR agenda forward. ‘Short-term” projects are “important” projects that need
to be implemented within 1-3 years, must be done, create the foundation and infrastructure for DRR, and address significant
vulnerability of the city. “Medium-term” projects are “relevant” projects that need to be implemented in the next 4-6 years, should
be done but there is limitation in resources, and will result to improvements in DRR in the medium to long term. most cases,
projects are defined broadly by cities to allow for the possibility of further adjustments in scope.

45
 Phase 4: Implementation, Monitoring and
Evaluation
Once the plan is in place, we need to make sure it can be implemented and that the incentive structure is in
place to aid in implementation.

1 • Establish a timeline for implementation

2 • Identify a set of indicators to establish benchmark

3 • Monitor progress over time

Step 1: Establish a timeline for implementation

The timeframe for a DRMMP can span anywhere from 6 to 15 years, depending on the planning cycles of cities.
For the DRMMP to be fully implementable, there has to be a clear understanding of the legal and administrative
processes of a city that concern with the approval of mandated plans. This requires knowing who approves,
when, and how. The Project Team needs to know at which step in the approval process the DRMMP should be
incorporated so that it becomes integrated in the budgeting cycle. If the DRMMP is incorporated into the normal
city budgeting process, funding for priority projects identified in the DRMMP will be allocated in the over-all budget
of the city. Figure 20 below provides an example of the budget approval process of Quezon City indicating how
the Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (LDRRMP) gets integrated in the Annual Investment Plan
(AIP).

Figure 20. Example of a Budget Approval Process to Fund the Programs, Projects, and Activities of the DRMMP

17
The AIP refers to the indicative yearly expenditure requirements of cities that will be integrated into their annual budget.

46
Step 2: Identify a set of indicators to establish benchmark
To track the progress (or lack of progress) of implementation, monitoring and evaluation tools are developed. One
of these tools is to develop a set of indicators that set initial benchmarks and can be used to measure progress.
The first is the quantitatively derived Urban Disaster Risk Indicators (UDRI), which provide a holistic view of
disaster risk in a locality by capturing the direct physical damages and the aggravating social conditions contributing
to total risk. The second is the qualitative Disaster Resiliency Indicators (DRI) which is a set of ten (10) indicators
that establishes initial benchmarks to measure to what extent risk reduction approaches have been mainstreamed
in the organizational, functional, operational and development systems and processes of local governments. The
aim of these indicators is to understand how well the local authority is performing in mainstreaming DRR into
different sectors based on pre-defined benchmarks and performance targets. The Indicator System is also used as
a risk communication and planning tool to assist in policy development, decision-making, and in monitoring the
effectiveness of PPAs.

DRRI Score
12 - Institutional 2.83
17 - Emergency Management 2.81
13 - Training/Capacity 2.76
16 - Infastructure Resiliency 2.73
19 - HVRA 2.62
14 - Advocacy/ Public Education 2.52
18 -Resouce Management 2.50
15 - Criti. Service Resiliency 2.48
11 - Legislative 2.40
I10 - Urban Development and Mitigation 2.18

INFASTRUCTURE ESF
LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING/REGULATION/MITIGATION
TRAINING
Figure 21. Results of DRRI for Mumbai. EMI, 2012

47
Step 3:Monitor progress over time
Using the DRRI, local governments have the tool to measure the impact of the DRMM programs, projects, and
activities they will be implementing. Figure 22 provides a framework on how the DRRI can support monitoring and
evaluating DRM programs, projects, and activities.

Figure 22. Framework for measuring progress on DRM. EMI, 2013

Moving from understanding to action and tracking progress on disaster resilience is a great challenge for local stake-
holders and practitioners. Approaches that make resilience tangible and operational for decision makers have to deal
effectively with the degree of impact and change required through different strategic actions in addressing agreed
upon resilience goals. From a policy perspective, indicators play a key role in operationalizing resilience as they can
provide information and track progress on complex issues in a way that is simple and accessible to decision makers.

48
 SUSTAINING
EFFORTS TO BUILD
RESILIENCE
Sustaining Efforts to
Build Resilience
Building resilience, especially within the context of urban areas, require not just raising awareness on risk reduction
but actual investments on programs, projects, and activities that reduce risk as well. For the plan to be fully
understood, accepted, and supported, it has to engage a broad range of stakeholders at all stages of the planning
process. However, they have to be equipped with the knowledge and tools to be able to participate meaningfully
and contribute to resilience building. Stakeholders have to understand what types of risk they face, what are the
implications of these risks to their own mandated responsibilities, what options are available to them to reduce their
risk, and what possible trade-offs they need to make in order to prioritize limited resources and address inherent
constraints.

The DRMMP yields concrete results during and immediately after the completion of the process. For instance,
dedicated DRM offices were established in Aqaba, Kathmandu, Mumbai, Quezon City and Pasig as a result of the
DRMMP process. For each city, there were specific programs, projects, and activities that were identified that guided
the city in terms of programming its DRR investments. Figure 23 below provides a summary of the results of DRM
programming for various cities.

Figure 23. Examples of DRM PPAs produced for various cities

Full implementation of the DRMMP, however, may require continuing technical assistance. Even if funding is
available from cities to implement DRR projects, they oftentimes lack the human resources to manage and under-
take DRR projects on their own. It is a resource-intensive approach. The DRMMP only provides the roadmap for
change in practice from a reactive to a more proactive approach. For the actual change to take place, the city has to
sustain investments in the medium to long term to make sure that it continues on the path towards risk reduction.

51
 DRMMP Process Checklist
1 • Establish formal agreement with city government

2 • Identify governance sectors to be included

3 • Set up a Project Management Team (PMT): identify members, clarify expectations, and develop
workplan
• Make sure assignments are understood and timelines are agreed on
PHASE 1

5 • Identify relevant external stakeholders

• Organize stakeholders into functional groups, such as: Advisory Committee, Scientific
Consortium, Focus Groups
6 • Assess team and stakeholder knowledge gaps
• Hold educational workshops and outreach on concepts of risk, vulnerability, and DRM

7 • Collaboratively identify data needs

• Create shared data management system and collect data

1 • Conduct Situational and Consequential Analyses of Urban Resilience Elements:

• Analyze legal and institutional arrangements for DRM
• Analyze land use planning and urban development policy and practice
• Analyze emergency management systems
PHASE 2

• Analyze other urban resilience elements such as water and sanitation,

transportation, health, shelter, and others

2 • Conduct Urban Risk Analysis

•Conduct hazard, vulnerability, capacity, and risk assessment
• Develop City Risk Profile
• Validate results of the Situational Analysis and Risk Analysis with stakeholders
• Ensure results are understood and group has consensus
3 • Use Consequential Analysis to interpret results

• Establish a common vision for city resilience

PHASE 3

1
2 • Identify and prioritize strategies to address vulnerabilities based on shared vision
3 • Identify and prioritize programs, projects, and activities for each strategy
• Identify implementing actors, timelines, and budgets for each program, project or activity
4 • Formalize the plan
• Publicize and conduct outreach

1 • Establish a timeline for implementation

PHASE 4

2 • Identify a set of indicators to establish benchmark

3 • Monitor progress over time

Acronyms
AC Advisory Committee
ADPC Asian Disaster Preparedness Center
BDRQCP Building a Disaster Resilient Quezon City Project
BNBC Bangladesh National Building Code
BIP Bangladesh Institute of Planners
BO Building Official
BUERP Bangladesh Urban Earthquake Resilience Project
CCA Climate Change Adaptation
CDMP Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme
DBO Department of Building Official
DILG Department of Interior and Local Government
DCR Development Control Regulation
DF Discussion Forum
DCC Dhaka City Corporation
DNCC Dhaka North City Corporation
DSCC Dhaka South City Corporation
DRM Disaster Risk Management
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
DRRM Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
DRMMP Disaster Risk Management Master Plan
DWASA Dhaka Water Supply and Sewage Authority
ECP End of Course Project
EMI Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative
EM Emergency Management
FG Focus Group
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GFDRR Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery
GSB Geological Survey of Bangladesh
GIS Geographic Information System
HLURB Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
HVRA Hazard, Vulnerability, and Risk Assessment
HFA Hyogo Framework for Action
HBRI Housing and Building Research Institute
ICT Information Communication and Technology
IEC Information, Education and Communication
KII Key Informant Interview
KMC Kathmandu Metropolitan City
KVTDC Kathmandu Valley Town Development Committee
LIA Legal and Institutional Arrangements
LUP-CCS Land Use Management and Construction Standards and Regulation
MCGM Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
MMDA Metro Manila Development Authority

53
MMEIRS Metro Manila Earthquake Impact Reduction Study
NEDA National Economic and Development Authority
NOC No Objection Certificate
PIT Project Implementation Team
QCG Quezon City Government
RA Republic Act
RAJUK Rajdhani Unnayan Katripakhaya
SC Scientific Consortium
TITASGAS Titas Gas Transmission and Distribution Company Ltd.
UDD Urban Development Directorate
URR Urban Risk Reduction

54
Glossary
Adaptation - The adjustment in natural or human
systems in response to actual or expected climatic
stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or
exploits beneficial opportunities
Building code - A set of ordinances or regulations
and associated standards intended to control aspects
of the design, construction, materials, alteration and
occupancy of structures that are necessary to ensure
human safety and welfare, including resistance to
collapse and damage
Capacity - The combination of all the strengths,
attributes and resources available within a community,
society or organization that can be used to achieve
agreed goals.
Climate change - A change in the state of the climate
that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests)
by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its
properties, and that persists for an extended period,
typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due
to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to
persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition
of the atmosphere or in land use (Inter-governmental
Panel on Climate Change, IPCC)
Critical Facility - Critical facilities are facilities needed
for emergency response such as hospitals, fire stations,
emergency centers, police stations, certain public
buildings that house functions needed by the public,
data centers, and powerplant.
Critical Infrastructure - The primary physical
structures, technical facilities and systems whose
disruption, failure or destruction have a serious impact
on the functioning of society, the economy or the state
within a natural hazard induced disaster context.
Disaster- A serious disruption of the functioning
of a community or a society involving widespread
human, material, economic or environmental losses
and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected
community or society to cope using its own resources.
Disaster risk - The potential disaster losses, in lives,
health status, livelihoods, assets and services, which
could occur to a particular community or a society over
some specified future time period.
Disaster risk management - The systematic process
of using administrative directives, organizations,
and operational skills and capacities to implement
strategies, policies and improved coping capacities in
order to lessen the adverse impacts of hazards and the
possibility of disaster
Disaster risk reduction - The concept and practice
of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts
to analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters,
including through reduced exposure to hazards,
lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise
management of land and the environment, and
improved preparedness for adverse events.
Disaster risk reduction (and management) plan -
A document prepared by an authority, sector,
organization or enterprise that sets out goals and
specific objectives for reducing disaster risks together
with related actions to accomplish these objectives.
Emergency management - The organization and
management of resources and responsibilities for
addressing all aspects of emergencies, in particular
preparedness, response and initial recovery steps.
Exposure - People, property, systems, or other
elements present in hazard zones that are thereby
subject to potential losses
High Loss Facility - High loss facilities are facilities
whose failure carries a large potential for loss of life.
Typically they include gas stations and other industrial
facilities which contain hazardous materials, schools,
markets, malls, hotels and high occupancy buildings,
hospitals, and assembly halls such as churches, sport
arenas, and others.
Land-use planning - The process undertaken by
public authorities to identify, evaluate and decide
on different options for the use of land, including
consideration of long term economic, social and
environmental objectives and the implications for
different communities and interest groups, and the
subsequent formulation and promulgation of plans that
describe the permitted or acceptable uses.
55
Mitigation - The lessening or limitation of the adverse
impacts of hazards and related disasters.
Natural hazard - Natural process or phenomenon that
may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts,
property damage, loss of livelihoods and services,
social and economic disruption, or environmental
damage.
Preparedness - The knowledge and capacities
developed by governments, professional response and
recovery organizations, communities and individuals to
effectively anticipate, respond to, and recover from, the
impacts of likely, imminent or current hazard events or
conditions.
Prevention - The outright avoidance of adverse
impacts of hazards and related disasters.
Recovery - The restoration, and improvement
where appropriate, of facilities, livelihoods and living
conditions of disaster-affected communities, including
efforts to reduce disaster risk factors.
Resilience - The ability of a system, community
or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb,
accommodate to and recover from the effects of a
hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including
through the preservation and restoration of its essential
basic structures and functions.
community, enterprise or state authority will obtain
resources from the other party after a disaster occurs,
in exchange for ongoing or compensatory social or
financial benefits provided to that other party.
Social Impacts - Consequences of a hazardous event
on the physical, economic and psychological well-being
of individuals and on the functioning of a community.
Features of a social system that help to avoid losses
and maintain or recover satisfying living conditions
after a shock.
Vulnerability - The characteristics and circumstances
of a community, system or asset that make it
susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard.
Vulnerable Population - The segments of the
population which exhibit a greater vulnerability due to
their socio-economic conditions or health limitations.
Sources: UNISDR, Definition of Terms, 2009; EMI,
HVRA Report, Pasig City Resilience to Earthquakes and
Floods Project, 2012.

Response - The provision of emergency services and

public assistance during or immediately
after a disaster in order to save lives, reduce health
impacts, ensure public safety and meet
the basic subsistence needs of the people affected.

Risk Identification and Assessment - A structured

analytical process designed to determine the nature
and extent of risk by analyzing potential hazards and
evaluating existing conditions of vulnerability that
together could potentially harm exposed people,
property, services, livelihoods and the environment on
which they depend.

Risk transfer - The process of formally or informally

shifting the financial consequences of particular risks
from one party to another whereby a household,

56
References
ADPC (2013). Integrating Disaster Risk Management into Urban Management. Disaster Risk Management
Practitioner’s Handbook Series. Bangkok: Asian Disaster Preparedness Center.

ADPC (2013). Integrating Disaster Risk Management into Climate Change Adapation. Disaster Risk Management
Practitioner’s Handbook Series. Bangkok: Asian Disaster Preparedness Center.

ADPC (2010). Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction, Urban Governance and Community Resilience Guides.
Bangkok: Asian Disaster Preparedness Center.

ADPC (2010). Risk Assessment in Cities, Urban Governance and Community Resilience Guides. Bangkok: Asian
Disaster Preparedness Center.

ARUP, The Rockefeller Foundation (2014), City Resilience Framework. London.

Asian Development Bank (2013), Investing in Resilience: Ensuring a Disaster-Resistant Future. Mandaluyong City,
Philippines: Asian Development Bank.

Bendimerad, F. N. von Einsiedel, V. Seva. The Challenge of Urban Redevelopment in Disaster-Affected

Communities, Environment and Urbanization ASIA 1(1) 27-44, Sage Publication

Benson, C., Twigg, J., & Rosetto, T. (2007). Tools for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction: Guidance Notes for
Development Organizations. Geneva: Provention Consortium.

Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., & Abel, N. (2001). From Metaphor to Measurement: Resilience of What
to What Ecosystems. Ecosystems , 765-781.

Cardona, O. D., & Barbat, A. H. (2000). El Riesgo Sı´smico y su Prevencion. Madrid: Calidad Siderurgica.

Cuny, F. (1983). Disasters and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Davoudi, S. (2012), Resilience: a Bridging Concept or a Dead End?, Planning Theory and Practice, Vol. 13, No. 2,
300–307.

EMI. (2012), Desk Review of Disaster Risk Management Models and Tools for Local Urban Application: A Technical
Report. EMI Internal Report. Quezon City: Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative.

EMI. (2013). Bangladesh Urban Earthquake Risk Management Legal and Institutional Arrangements Analysis. EMI
Internal Report. Quezon City: Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative.

EMI. (2013). A Guide for the Organizational Mapping and Network Analysis Data Gathering and Report Writing. EMI
Internal Report. Quezon City: Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative.

EMI. (2013). Bangladesh Urban Earthquake Risk Management Legal and Institutional Arrangements Analysis. EMI
Internal Report. Quezon City: Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative.

EMI. (2013). A Guide for the Organizational Mapping and Network Analysis Data Gathering and Report Writing. EMI
Internal Report. Quezon City: Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative.

EMI. (2012). Pasig City Organizational Mapping andNetwork Analysis.Pasig City Resilience toEarthquakes and

57
Floods Project. EMI Internal Report. Quezon City: Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative.

EMI. (2011). Disaster Risk Management Master Plan Handbook. EMI Internal Report. Quezon City: Earthquakes
and Megacities Initiative.

EMI. (2011). Disaster Risk Reduction in Aqaba Special Economic Zone Authority.EMI InternalReport.

EMI. (2011). Organizational Mapping Tool. Legal andInstitutional Arrangements Component tosetup disaster risk
management office withinthe Aqaba Special Economic Zone Authorityand provide competency training Project.
EMI Internal Report.

EMI. (2009a, March). FFO-DKKV Phase II - Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction in Megacities: A Pilot Application
in Metro Manila and Kathmandu - Summary Report.

EMI. (2009b, March). FFO-DKKV Phase II - Sectoral Profile of Kathmandu Metropolitan City, Nepal.

EMI. (2009c, March). Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative (EMI), FFO-DKKV Phase II - Risk Sensitive Land Use Plan
of Kathmandu Metropolitan City, Nepal.

EMI. (2009d, March). FFO-DKKV Phase II - Structuring and Implementing a Competent Disaster Risk Management
Function at KMC, Nepal .

EMI. (2009e, March). FFO-DKKV Phase II - Risk-Sensitive Urban Redevelopment Plan of Barangay Rizal, Makati
City, Philippines.

EMI. (2007a). Application of Indicators in Urban and Megacities Disaster Risk Management: A Case Study of Metro
Manila (TR-07-01).

EMI. (2007b). Urban and Megacities Disaster Risk Reduction: Manual of Sound Practices (TR-07-02).

EMI. (2007c). Enhancing Local Partnership and Stakeholders Ownership: Implementing the DRMMP in Metro
Manila. PR-06-02.

FAO. (2013). Resilient Livelihoods: Disaster Risk Reduction for Food and Nutrition Security Framework
Programme. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Emlqvist, & Gunderson, L. e. (2012). Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building
Adaptive Capacity in a World of Transformations. Stockholm: Environmental Advisory Council-Sweden.

Holland, Jeremy. (2007). Tools for Institutional, Political, and Social Analysis of Policy Reform: A Sourcebook for
Development Practitioners.

Tanhueco, R.(2008). Mainstreaming Flood Vulnerability Assessment in the Development and Land Use Plans in
Dagupan City, Philippines, Dissertation, School of Urban and Regional Planning.

Jha, A. K., Bloch, R., & Lamond, J. (2012). Cities and Flooding: A Guide to Integrated Urban Flood Risk
Management in the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: GFDRR.

Jha, A. K., Miner T.W, and Stanton-Geddes Z., (2013). Building Urban Resilience: Principles, Tools, and Practice.
Directions in Development. Washington, DC: World Bank.

UNISDR. (2012). How to Make Cities More Resilient: A Handbook for Local Government Leaders. Geneva: United
Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.

UN. (1987). Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012. NY: UN.

58
Appendix
Appendix 1: Sample Official Orders to set-up the organizational
structure to develop the DRMMPs

59
Pre-release version 13 March 2015
Copyright ©2015 EMI