Asian Disaster Reduction Center

Case 2: TOWN-WATCHING FOR FLOODS IN VIETNAM
Background:Central Vietnam is mountainous and suffers annual attacks by typhoons and monsoon rains. The broad expanses of agricultural
lowlands enjoy the full benefit of this abundant supply of rainwater. However, they also experience many flash floods, which

Town-Watching for Disaster Reduction- Community Based Hazard Mapping: an effective tool for raising public awareness -can cause extensive human and economic loss. The Government of Vietnam adopted a policy of developing flood hazard mapsas a way of minimising damage in several central provinces. Because of the geographic and climatic characteristics (manyBRIDGING THE RISK PERCEPTION GAPshort, steep rivers plunging from the mountain slopes to the coast, torrential rains, broad rural areas sparsely inhabited),
non-structural measures such as hazard maps are cost-effective and easy to implement swiftly, as opposed to large-scale

Despite best endeavors, the numbers of people affected and economic

structural measures like dams and dikes, which are relatively more demanding of time and resources. Accordingly, a series oflosses caused by natural disasters have been increasing over recent

training courses on how to use flood hazard maps were organised for local communities.

decades. Lack of proper recognition of risks is one of the major factors
aggravating this situation. Our society is vulnerable to disasters due to,Implementation of Town-Watching with hand-drawn base maps:

among other things, "risk perception gaps", i.e. a disparity between theactual risk and that recognised by people. Therefore, it is vital that we plug

The targeted area was rural and sparsely inhabited, so printed detail maps for this

this gap in order to lessen the negative impact of disasters.

area were not available. We needed to implement Town-Watching without thebenefit of such maps. So, for the Town-Watching field survey that was conducted

LIMITATIONS OF HAZARD MAPS

as part of the training course, each group was required to not only take photographs
and make notes, but also to draw an outline map as they walked the streets andpaths. Although this increased each group's workload, the concept of drawing aMany governments distribute hazard maps for the purpose of raising public awareness about risks. A "hazard map" provides

rough map while conducting a field survey helped to stimulate trainees' alertness

graphic information on potential natural hazards (seismic intensity, flood inundation depth, landslide prone areas, etc.), and on
Figure 3-1 Trainees interviewed a farmer togather concrete information on a recent severe
flood.

for flooding vulnerabilities in the community.

evacuation matters (location of shelters, evacuation routes, potential risk areas, storage facilities for relief materials, etc.).
However, mere dissemination of hazard maps by governments to local residents is usually inadequate as a means of raisingawareness of actual disaster reduction activities at the community level. Because of the risk perception gap, people tend topay scant attention to hazard maps, or fail to properly appreciate the information conveyed on such maps. By and large, people
do not effectively use the hazard maps as a guide to taking appropriate actions to minimise damage from disasters.

WHAT IS COMMUNITY BASED HAZARD MAPPING?
Recently, "Community Based Hazard Mapping" has been used in some countries as a tool for improving disaster preparedness. This
Figure 3-2 Trainees hand-sketched both geographic
features (river flows, roads, land uses, etc.) andevacuation information (two-story buildings for
shelter during floods, evacuation routes, etc.).

Figure 3-4 Presentation of the results of group
discussions

Figure 3-3 Hand-drawn community based flood
hazard map developed from town-watchingprocess, communities will gain enhanced awareness of risks, thereby bridging the risk perception gap. Community Based Hazard
Mapping has three key objectives:
1) To involve local residents in developing the hazard map for their community,

Follow-up on training course:2) To reflect the opinions of local residents in policies made by their local government, andThis training course was conducted as a "Training of Trainers" (TOT), primarily targeting local officials from flood-prone
communes, districts and provinces. Those trainees were expected to become trainers upon returning to their localcommunities. Some flood hazard map training courses by such trainers, who attended these TOTs, were implemented (or dueto be implemented) in other local areas.

3) To foster common understanding of risks among local residents, government officials and experts.
Figure 1 shows an overview of Community Based Hazard
Mapping. First, local government integrates basic
information (topography, roads, buildings, population,land-use, etc.) with information on past and future

SUMMARY
Town-Watching for Disaster Reduction is a simple and practical tool for efficiently implementing community based hazard
mapping in various local communities around the world. The major merits of Town-Watching are that, after experiencing
physical involvement in such activities as walking, observing, mapping by hand and discussing findings, people are better
able to:(potential) natural hazards on the local area map. Experts
provide technical advice on assessing hazards. Using theintegrated information, local government develops anevacuation plan and drafts a hazard map. The draft isdisseminated as a printed map or via the Internet for1) Develop a concrete image of disaster reduction activities,

local residents and all other stakeholders. Discussion2) Autonomously identify problems in their own communities,

between local government, residents and experts is the3) Share opinions arrived at from various viewpoints,

most important process in Community Based Hazard

4) Build confidence within the local community through face-to-face discussions, andMapping. Basically, local residents are the best source of5) Reach a reasonable social consensus.

actual on-site knowledge and information. Reflection ofcommunity input is indispensable to improvement of

ADRC hopes to continue working toward disaster reduction through Town-Watching.

hazard maps. Meanwhile, discussion facilitates consensus(January 2005)

REFERENCES:"Report on the model project of the regional tsunami evacuation planning", Fire and Disaster Management Agency, Ministryof Internal Affairs and Communications, Government of Japan, 2003 / "Report on Binh Dinh and Quang Nam Flood Hazard
Map Use Training Course for Province, District and Commune Level", Nguyen Thi Thu Que, UNDP/ Disaster Management
Unit (UNDP Project VIE/97/002), 2004 / "Town Watching as a tool for citizen involvement in developing countries:
Applications in Disaster Training", Yujiro Ogawa, Antonio L. Fernandez, Teruhiko Yoshimura, 2004 (to be submitted)

approach focuses on the process of developing hazard maps, not just their distribution. The premise is that by working through theContact: Asian Disaster Reduction Center
E-mail rep@adrc.or.jp
URL http://www.adrc.or.jp/

building among stakeholders. By incorporating the resultsof such discussions into the draft map, a community
based hazard map is established.
Figure 1 Concept of Community Based Hazard Mapping

TOWN-WATCHING FOR DISASTER REDUCTION- GOOD PRACTICES -"Town-Watching for Disaster Reduction" is a tool whereby all stakeholders in the community work together throughTown-Watching is an adaptable tool. It can easily be applied to local conditions and needs. Here, we present two actual

the process of developing a hazard map. It takes only one day, and requires only a map, a camera, and some coloured

examples where ADRC has made a contribution.

markers. The flow chart of a Town-Watching programme is as follows:

Case 1: TOWN-WATCHING FOR EARTHQUAKES AND TSUNAMIS IN JAPAN
0. Relevant lectures (mechanisms of natural hazards,

Background:

historical events, causes of local vulnerabilities,
countermeasures, etc.) are provided by experts,

Mie Prefecture, located in the south central part of Japan and facing the Pacific Ocean, has a history of frequent major

government officials, or local residents who haveearthquakes and tsunamis. Most notably, the 1944 Tonankai Earthquake killed 389 people and devastated thousands ofexperienced previous severe disasters, so that allhouses in this area. Since 2002, cities and towns in Mie Prefecture, in collaboration with the Japanese Government's Fire

participants share the same background informationand Disaster Management Agency, have been introducing Town-Watching for Disaster Reduction, for the purpose of

on local conditions in relation to disasters. Visualcreating community based hazard maps, and raising public awareness of earthquake and tsunami disasters. ARDC haspresentations help participants to understand theprovided some support for this activity.

situation more clearly. Objectives, schedules ofactivities, and expected results of the Town-Implementation of Town-Watching:

Watching exercise are also explained. Participants

In local districts of Owase City in Mie Prefecture, Town-Watching was conducted in the form of a field survey combined withare divided into small groups prior to the start of thethree workshops.

field survey. A group comprises 5-10 members, witheach assigned a specific role: group leader, navigator,

The first workshop was conducted for the purpose of developing a comprehensive basic understanding of the mechanisms ofphotographer, note-taker, presenter at the final

earthquakes and tsunamis, actual historical experience of disasters in those districts and the latest estimates of potential

presentation, etc.

damage. Several government officials, researchers and survivors of the Tonankai Earthquake were invited to give lectures.
Participants comprised a wide variety of stakeholders: local residents, officials of the Owase City municipal government and1. Each group (which includes a mix of local residents,

the Mie Prefecture municipal government, researchers, volunteer coordinators, etc.

experts and government officials) walks around thetown to identify and study advantageous points

A field survey was conducted, with the participants divided into two groups. Each group(usefuletc.),

had an area map containing detailed information (individual residents' names andforaddresses, roads, stations, bus stops, etc.), maps showing previous and projectedevacuation, etc.), and other important aspects

tsunami inundation depths, writing materials and an instant camera. They made notes

relevant to disaster reduction. They make notes andand took photographs of the aspects that could be disadvantageous or advantageous totake photos. Observation should be conducted fromthe community during the occurrence of a disaster. Interviews with other local

the viewpoint of local evacuees experiencing severe

residents were also conducted in order to obtain specific local information. Althoughdisasters.

several participants knew the target area very well, there were still a number of fresh

facilities,

disadvantageous

evacuation

points(tooroutes,

steep

slope

insights gained as a result of observing from the viewpoint of disaster reduction.
2. Each group then transfers its field observations
and assembled information onto a large-scale map,

The second workshop focused on mapping. Each group traced the information andusing colour differentiation to facilitate visualobservations (potential risk areas, previous tsunami inundation areas, evacuation

understanding. Attaching photos to notes on the map

shelters and routes, location of vulnerable people, etc.) obtained by the field survey

can be helpful. Eventually, a community based hazard

onto a large-scale (1:1,000) base map. Photos and notes were also attached to the map.

map is created.

Once the two groups had finalised their maps, representatives of each group worked
together to combine the two individual efforts into one large "master" map. In due
course, the participants established their own community based hazard map.

3. Group members discuss problems that they haveidentified, and consider possible solutions for
effective disaster reduction in the community.

In the third workshop, each group discussed vulnerabilities, possible countermeasures,Mapping, sharing thoughts and talking with eachpriorities, degrees of difficulty and responsibility for implementing each proposed

other face-to-face around the large-scale map helps

countermeasure, etc. Finally, representatives of each group presented their respectiveto stimulate and facilitate active discussion. Finally,group's community based hazard map and recommendations for disaster reduction

the developed community based hazard maps andactivities to members of the other group, in order to share the carefully consideredoutcomes of the group discussion are arranged on a

results from the two different viewpoints. In closing, the coordinator summarised thetable and presented to all participants. This

problems, countermeasures and future action plans that had been illuminated by thisTown-Watching exercise.

presentation session provides participants withopportunities to share in the views and ideas
developed by other groups.

Figure 2 Flow-chart of Town-Watching for DisasterReduction

Follow-up on Town-Watching:After the Town-Watching exercise, some communities installed metal plates on the streets, indicating tsunami water levels
on the street. Others re-located shelters and installed solar battery-powered streetlights along evacuation routes. Handannotated maps were enhanced, digitalised and posted on Web sites for public access.