Risk at the Margins (RAM): a blueprint for defragmenting disaster risk reduction with populations at risk

灾害造成的负担仍然严重不均：它们不成比例地反复影响中低收入国家的最脆弱人口。因此，我们希望找到一种方法来改善我们在这些情况下如何应对社区灾害风险。在减少自然灾害对发展中国家人口的生活、生计和可持续发展的影响方面进展缓慢，原因是在处理抵御多种灾害的能力方面对“预期做法”重视不够。换句话说，缺乏方法和战略，使人们能够在进行可持续发展的同时适应、科普或避免未来风险的积累。目前的学术和发展实践在很大程度上是孤立的，这意味着他们专注于个别危害，或者专注于了解和警告人们有关危害的方法，或者了解社区如何变得脆弱并采取行动改变这种状况。例如，灾害专家往往根据实际驱动因素而不是根据社会和环境影响的“下游”因素来分析“上游”风险。那些分析重点放在脆弱性结果的人可能会忽视灾害可以改变的方式，并从根本上重塑暴露的性质。这种分散造成的情况是，问题和解决办法通常不能有效地协调一致，面临风险的人口更难实施适应、科普或避免未来风险的战略（前瞻性做法）。尽管人们越来越认识到跨学科参与将为解决这一问题带来的价值，但这一问题仍然存在。我们的目标是通过将GCRF和其他相关项目的广泛分组结合起来来解决这个问题，以消除灾害风险的科学技术解决方案与解决基本社会脆弱性的项目之间的脱节（第一阶段）。我们将利用这一点来发展鼓励前瞻性实践的方法和策略（在第二阶段发展）。我们将在第一阶段使用广泛危害的透镜来应对这一挑战。广泛的灾害（在较小的地理区域长期或更强烈地经历的灾害-如干旱、火山灰、滑坡、污染）可能产生比不经常发生的高成本事件更有害于可持续发展的负面后果，特别是对有其他脆弱性的人口。我们认为，广泛的危害需要一种多危害的方法来描述和监测它们，并且可以从它们对当地人口的影响的角度来考虑减轻它们：它们需要一种联合的方法。我们将开始集中在三个“设计挑战”的地方，我们了解的社会，政治和文化背景，并已确定的项目，可以受益于这种联合起来的方法。这些项目在尼泊尔、圣文森特和厄瓜多尔，重要的是，将以当地社区团体为基础。我们将评估我们如何回答这个问题，并围绕一个更广泛的审查整合差距，以及如何，为什么和何时克服它是重要的。这些进程将创造一个“安全空间”，我们可以在这里讨论失败和成功，并对不同的工作方式、经验或观点产生的怀疑进行空中交流。我们将在我们的重点领域创造新的解决方案，并综合整个项目的结果（通过共同努力和审查中的协商）。这为未来的实践制定了蓝图，将了解如何：（1）从经历灾害的人的角度监测、预防和减轻广泛的灾害;（2）如何在日常风险挑战和可持续发展政策的背景下预防广泛的灾害。我们将在第二阶段项目中使用此信息，并通知在第一阶段开始的两个新项目。

The burden of disasters remains grossly unequal: they disproportionately and repeatedly impact the most vulnerable populations in low- and middle- income countries. Thus, we wish to find a way to improve how we address community disaster risk in those contexts. Poor progress in reducing the impacts on lives, livelihoods and sustainable development that natural hazards have on populations in developing countries has been attributed to a weak focus on 'prospective practice' in addressing resilience to multiple hazards. In other words a lack of methods and strategies that allow people to adapt to, cope with or avoid the accumulation of future risk while undergoing sustainable development. Current academic and development practices are largely siloed, which means they focus on individual hazards, or approaches that are either focussed on understanding and warning people about the hazards, or on understanding how communities can be vulnerable and acting to change that. For example, hazard specialists often frame their analysis of risks 'upstream' on the basis of physical drivers rather than 'downstream' on social and environmental impacts. Those whose analysis focuses on vulnerability outcomes can overlook the way that hazards can change and radically reshape the nature of exposure. This fragmentation creates situations where problems and solutions commonly are not effectively aligned, and it becomes much harder for populations at risk to implement strategies that adapt, cope with or avoid future risk (prospective practice). This problem remains despite a growing recognition of the value that interdisciplinary engagement would bring in solving this. We aim to address this by bringing together a wide grouping of GCRF and other related projects to drop the disconnect between scientific-technical solutions to disaster risk and projects that address the fundamental social vulnerabilities (the first stage). We will use this in order to develop methods and strategies that encourage prospective practice (to develop in the second stage). We will use the lens of extensive hazards to address this challenge during the first stage. Extensive hazards (those experienced for long periods or more intensely in smaller geographic areas - e.g. drought, ashfall, landsliding, pollution) can generate negative outcomes that are more damaging to sustainable development than infrequent high cost events, particularly for populations with other vulnerabilities. We think that extensive hazards need a multi-hazard approach to their characterisation and monitoring, and that their mitigation could be considered from the point of view of their impacts on the local populations: they need a joined up approach. We will begin by focussing on three 'design challenges' in places where we understand the social, political and cultural context and have identified projects that could benefit from this joined-up approach. These are in Nepal, St Vincent and Ecuador and, importantly, will be grounded by community groupings in situ. We will evaluate how we answer that and wrap around a broader review of the integration gap and how, why and when it is important to overcome. These processes will create 'a safe space' where we can discuss failures as well as successes and air suspicions arising from different ways of working, experiences or perspectives. We will create new solutions in our focus areas, and synthesise the findings across the project (by working together and the consultation represented in the review). This develops a blueprint for prospective practice that will understand how to: (1) monitor, characterise and mitigate extensive hazard from the perspective of those who experience them; (2) how to situate extensive hazards in the context of everyday risk challenges and policies for sustainable development. We will use this in the second stage project and to inform two new projects that begin during our first stage.