Disclaimer
This report was compiled by an ADRC visiting researcher (VR) from ADRC
member countries.
The views expressed in the report do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe ADRC. The boundaries and names shown and the designations usedon the maps in the report also do not imply official endorsement or
acceptance by the ADRC.

6/2/2020

Integration Approach WHO VIP
and UN DRR with Safety
Inequality Analysis
Chang Hyun KANG
Dankook University
10th Nov. 2019

Contents
1. Safety inequality
2. WHO VIP and UN DRR
3. Injury in Japan and Korea
4. Safety Inequality Analysis
5. Integration: Korean case1

6/2/2020

Safety Inequality
The nature of injuries and violence varies considerably according to age,sex, region and income group(WHO,2014:7).
Even within countries, injuries show strong social class gradients.
This means that people from poorer economic backgrounds have higher
rates of death from injury and non-fatal injuries than wealthier people.
As well as being at increased risk, disadvantaged families are hardest hit
by the financial pressure resulting from injuries. Poor families are lesslikely to have the financial resources to pay the direct costs (e.g. medicalbills) as well as the indirect costs (e.g. lost wages) related to injuries(WHO,2014:10).

Social class gradients are present in injury deaths rates (e.g. a correlation
coefficient between death due to accidents and social deprivation r = 0.56
and a 17 times higher homicide rate in social class V vs. I in England,
1980–1984 and 1980–1995 respectively.
Of note, the five basic social classes recognized by Office of Population
Censuses and Surveys are described as follows: I Professional occupations;
II Managerial and technical occupations; III Skilled occupations; IV Partly –skilled occupations and V Unskilled occupations
Alexandrescu et al.(2009). BMC Public Health 9:226

2

6/2/2020

Whereas a straightforward inverse association between injury death
rates and socio-economic status(SES) has been observed from theliterature review, the evidence for socioeconomic inequalities andinjury morbidity has not been wholly consistent.
For fatal injuries socioeconomic gradients or inverse association withSES have been shown in descriptive studies of childhood injuries. For
non-fatal injuries results vary from presenting no relationship toassociations of injury requiring hospitalisation and/or A&E visits withSES(Alexandrescu et al., 2009: 20)

Scope and Purpose
The present Framework will apply to the risk of small-scale and largescale, frequent and infrequent, sudden and slow-onset disasters caused
by natural or man-made hazards, as well as related environmental,
technological and biological hazards and risks.
It aims to guide the multihazard management of disaster risk indevelopment at all levels as well as within and across all sectors( SendaiFramework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 : 11).

3

6/2/2020

WHO VIP: Violence and Injury Prevention
Focusing on man made hazards:
WHO highlights that more than 5 million people die each year as aresult of injuries, resulting from acts of violence against oneself orothers, road traffic crashes, burns, drowning, falls, and poisonings,
among other causes. Injuries account for 9% of the world’s deaths(https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/media/news/2015/Injur
y_violence_facts_2014/en/)- Violence:
Child maltreatment, Elder abuse, Violence against women, Youthviolence, Violence against children- Unintentional injuries:
Animal bites, Burns, Child injury prevention, Drowning, Falls, Road
traffic injuries.ISCCC: international safe community : 7guides

4

6/2/2020

The seven indicators a community must fulfill to became an International
Safe Community are:
1. An infrastructure based on partnership and collaborations, governedby a cross- sector group that is responsible for safety promotion in theircommunity
2. Long-term, sustainable programs covering genders and all ages,environments, and situations
3. Programs that target high-risk groups and environments, and programs
that promote safety for vulnerable groups
4. Programs that are based on the available evidence
5. Programs that document the frequency and causes of injuries
6. Evaluation measures to assess their programs, processes and the effectsof change
7. On-going participation in national and international Safe Communities
networks
https://isccc.global/indicators-that-must-be-fulfilled.Local policy : international safe community- Korea : 16(3) Asan City, Busan Metropolitan, Changwon, Cheonan,Gangbuk, Gumi, Gwacheon City, Gwangju City, Gwangju Metropolitan City,Jeju, Jeonju, Nam-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City, Pyeongtaek City, Samcheok
City, Sejong, Songpa, Suncheon City, Suwon, Wonju- Japan : 15 Atsugi, Chichibu, Izumiotsu, Kagoshima, Kameoka, Kitamoto,Koka, Komoro, Koriyama, Kurume City, Matsubara City, Minowa, Sakae
Ward, Yokohama City, Toshima City, Tokyo, Towada City5

6/2/2020- UNDRR:.Sendai framework 4priority
Priority 1: Understanding disaster risk
Priority 2: Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk
Priority 3: Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience
Priority 4: Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to“Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction
4,307cities are participating
During 2017-2018, 214 cities/municipalities from Asia (88), Americas (50),
Sub-Saharan Africa (50), and Arab States (26) conducted the Scorecard
assessment as part of the initiative “Making Cities Sustainable and Resilient:
Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 20152030 at the Local Level.Local policy : Making Cities Resilient Campaign, role model city
45 role model cities(2015): Sendai, Hyogo(Japan)

External cause of Mortality Deaths per 100,000 population (standardised rates):
OECD
100

90

89.6
85.4

84
80

85

84
80.1

79.5

78.3

76.1

78.2

76.2

74

70

70.2

67.8
62.2

60

58
54.8

53.3

50

52.5

53.3

51

51.4

59.6

Japan
49.1

48.6

47.8

47.3

Korea

47.6
44.2

40

42.5

40.7

OECD
38.9

30

20

100
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

6

6/2/2020

transport accident
35
32.6
30
27.4
25.2 24.5

25

22.1
20

20.6 19.9

Japan

18.6

17.2 16.5

15
10

9.7

9.2

8.7

7.97.5

7.1

5

6.3

5.7

5.1

4.9

15.3

4.8

Korea
13.8 13.9

4.5

4.2

12.6 11.7
11.2

3.9

3.7

OECD

3.6

0

Accidental falls

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
16
14.2

1413

13

12
1012

12.7

10.1 10.1

10.1

Japan8

Korea

7.6

6
4

0ECD

6
4.7

4.6

4.4

4.5

4.2

4.2

4

4.1

4.1

4

5.1

5.2

4.9

4

3.9

3.8

5.3

5

4.9

3.7

3.7

3.6

20
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

accident
7060
56.3

58.7

5055.353.2
47.2

44.9 45.3
41.4

40
30
2037.530.2 29.5

28.2 27.5

26.5

26.9
25.1 24.1 23.6

Japan
34.3 3422.8 23.8

34.8
31.9 32.8 31.1
22.7 21.5

Korea
2927.9OECD

20.7 19.9

100
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

intentional self harm

40
35

33.8 33.5 33.3

30
28.1
25
20
15

29.5 29.9

28.7 2916.6

18

29.1 28.7
26.7 25.8

26.2

23.3
22.3 21.4 22.7
21.9 22.1 21.6 22.1 21.8 22.2 21.2
21.7
20.9

Japan
19.1 18.7

17.6

Korea
16.6OECD

10502000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20157

6/2/2020

KOREA
100
90
80

accident

70

accident fall

60

externa mortality

50

self harm

40transport accident

30

assault20

accidental poisoning

1002000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

JAPAN

70
60

accident

50

accident fall40

assault
external motality

30

self harmtransport accident

20

accidental poisoning
1002000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Safety Inequality Analysis (2018national health & nutrition data, Korea)
Transport accident

fall./slip down

collision

total

OR(95%CI)

OR(95%CI)

OR(95%CI)

OR(95%CI)

0.66(0.48-0.90)*

1.70(1.13-2.55)*

1.08(0.90-1.30)

1.00

1.00

SES
sex†

1.35(0.90-2.03)

age††
1-18

1.00

19-44

4.20(1.87-9.40)***0.30(0.18-0.50)*** 0.56(0.33-0.95)*

0.78(0.60-1.02)

1.00

45-64

2.80(1.22-6.42)*

0.58(0.39-0.87)**

0.60(0.36-1.00)*

0.88(0.68-1.13)

65+

2.58(1.07-6.19)*

1.05(0.71-1.56)

0.33(0.17-0.67)**

0.95(0.72-1.26)

Among old age
65-69

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

70-74

0.22(0.49-1.01)

1.17(0.56-2.46)

0.62(0.11-3.42)

0.86(0.52-1.43)

75-79

0.25(0.05-1.13)

1.22(0.57-2.59)

0.69(0.12-3.82)

0.68(0.39-1.18)

80+

0.49(0.13-1.80)

1.50(0.69-3.25)

1.39(0.30-6.25)

0.91(0.52-1.60)*P<.05, **P<.01 ***P<.001

Age1-18 infant and adolescent, 19-44 pre adult, 45-64 post adult, 65+ oldperson86/2/2020

Iincome⧧Transport
accident
1.00

I

fall/slip down
1.00

collision
1.00

total
1.00

II

0.99(0.59-1.66)

1.03(0.67-1.57)

0.81(0.47-1.41)

0.91(0.71-1.16)

III

0.86(0.49-1.50)

1.19(0.78-1.81)

1.27(0.76-2.11)

1.09(0.85-1.39)

IV

0.73(0.38-1.42)

1.53(0.98-2.37)

0.82(0.43-1.56)

1.04(0.79-1.37)

Basic allowance‡ 1.53(0.79-2.97)

1.69(1.05-2.71)*

1.14(0.55-2.36)

1.23(0.89-1.71)

education
CollegeHigh school

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.90(0.54-1.50)

1.39(0.84-2.27)

1.28(0.70-2.33)

1.23(0.95-1.60)

Middle school

0.78(0.38-1.58)

1.94(1.10-3.42)*

1.31(0.61-2.80)

1.44(1.04-1.98)*

Elementary0.57(0.34-0.98)*

2.62(1.72-3.98)***1.87(1.10-3.15)*

1.46(1.15-1.85)**

Average monthly income household; I high(3million+), II middle high(2m3m), III middle low(1m-2m), IV low(-100m)

Occupation§
Ⅰ

Transport
accident

fall/slip down

collision

total

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Ⅱ

1.60(0.82-3.12)

2.82(1.31-6.05)**

1.53(0.71-3.33)

1.68(1.15-2.45)**

Ⅲ

1.50(0.79-2.84)

1.75(0.78-3.93)

1.20(0.55-2.60)

1.69(1.19-2.41)**Ⅳ

0.97(0.41-2.30)

3.22(1.46-7.12)**0.73(0.24-2.19)

1.35(0.87-2.10)

Ⅴ

0.76(0.42-1.35)

3.74(2.02-6.91)***0.96(0.51-1.80)

1.62(1.22-2.16)**

I Professional and Managerial occupations; II Service and technicaloccupations; III Skilled occupations; IV Partly – skilled and Unskilledoccupations; V unemployed96/2/2020

Gender in disaster- Mayumi SAKAMOTO(2019. 10. 9. JICA). Death male 136/female 274(female66%). Earthquake occurred just before lunch time, female who werepreparing luch suffered in sudden earthquake
citymalefemale

豐岡

46

41

八条
新田

21三江

1

田鶴野

44五壯

22內川

38

城崎

78194

港

222total

136274Integration WHO VIP and UN DRR in Korea▶National government sets 7safety indicators as a tool for grant allocation tolocal① transport accident② fire③ crime(assault)④ accidents

WHO VIP⑤ intentional self harm
⑥ infection disease⑦ natural disasterUN DRR▶ Local governments act and get a safety promotion and funds-mortality (transport+fire+suicide+infect) : ('16) 20,128 → ('17) 19,129(△999)-incident(fire+crime+accident) : ('16) 722,421 → ('17)93,892(△28,529)-No evidence and data enough to review the performance for the
disadvantaged in safety.

10

6/2/2020

THANK YOU

11