1. Alternate livelihood income plan for vulnerability reduction through community based disaster preparedness
JAERD
Alternate livelihood income plan for vulnerability
reduction through community based disaster
preparedness
Jeyanth K. Newport1*
, Jason J. Möller2
, Keny J. Newport1
, Aroshaliny Godfrey4
and Godfrey
G.P. Jawahar5
1
57-A, Yesudian Street, Nagercoil – 629001, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu, India.
2,4,5
,4,5 SNIRD, Railpet, Ongole – 523001, Prakasam District, Tamil Nadu, India.
3
Bishop Heber College, Vayalur Road, Puthur, Tiruchirapalli – 620017, Tamil Nadu, India.
The occurrence of natural disasters is currently one of the major developmental challenges that
the world is facing. The Society for National Integration through Rural Development (SNIRD), an
NGO working with the fisherfolk communities in the state of Andhra Pradesh, India, has long
been working towards reducing community vulnerability and strengthening coping
mechanisms. As there were no preparedness measures among the communities, the impact of
the disaster was worsened, often destroying their livelihood support mechanisms. Hence SNIRD
initiated a project to organize the community and imparted trainings towards disaster coping
mechanisms. The project followed a community-based strategy, making use of Participatory
Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques by involving the community. This paper deals with the
techniques of vulnerability assessment by involving the community and in preparing alternate
livelihood income plan towards disaster preparedness and management. The project was
evaluated using an amended version of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) and found that
the project was able to sufficiently increase their alternative livelihood mechanisms and
therewith comprehensively and sustainable decrease community vulnerability to natural
disasters.
Keywords: Community-based disaster risk reduction, contingency planning, Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), natural
disaster, participatory rural appraisal
INTRODUCTION
The occurrence of natural disasters is widely accepted as
a one of the key threats to development within developing
nations, in their pursuit of eradicating poverty (Dilley et
al., 2005). In more recent years, the definition of poverty
itself has evolved from observing income, into a more
holistic approach of evaluating their well-being, with
expanded criteria for evaluation (Yodami, 2000). Thus,
when reducing community vulnerability to natural and
anthropogenic disasters, it is proposed to not only
conventionally reduce their vulnerability, but also to
create a more equitable, resilient and sustainable future
for them (O‟Brian et al., 2008; Leichenko and O‟Brian
2008). In order to address social, economic and
environmental vulnerabilities, there has been an
emergence of four specific research and policy
communities, namely (Thomella et al., 2006):
1. disaster risk reduction;
2. climate change adaptation;
3. environmental management; and
4. poverty reduction
*Corresponding author: Jeyanth K. Newport, 57-A,
Yesudian Street, Nagercoil – 629001, Kanyakumari
District, Tamil Nadu, India. Email:
jeyanthnewport@gmail.com
Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development
Vol. 3(1), pp. 060-072, January, 2016. © www.premierpublishers.org, ISSN: 2167-0477


Research Article

2. Alternate livelihood income plan for vulnerability reduction through community based disaster preparedness
Newport et al. 060
As discussed in current scientific literature (O´Brian et al.,
2008), there are complex interrelations between these
aforementioned „communities‟. This is evident in literature
such as that by Yodmani (2000), where it is argued that
in order to improving the economic resilience of such
communities, the physical, social and political risks must
also be recognized and managed. Even so, there is still
much ambiguity within the various sectors towards
addressing disaster risk and vulnerability. There is a
marked need across various researches, policies and
practice disciplines to foster greater synergy of ideas,
planning and practices to more effectively address
community vulnerability. This is evident in that there are
still many varying opinions and definitions of disaster risk,
community vulnerability and disaster management
(Twigg, 2007). This divergence is further exacerbated by
the fact that at regional, national and sub-national level,
many researchers, practitioners and policy makers
choose to adopt specific concepts and ideologies within
the field of disaster management which are best suited to
their localities and the associated social, economic,
environmental and cultural conditions. This has made it
more difficult to clearly and comprehensively identify a
framework towards sustainable actions to address
community vulnerability to disasters (Schipper, 2008).
Great strides have been made in addressing vulnerability,
but this is still inadequate as global statistics indicates
that the loss of human life and property resulting from
disasters is still high (IFRC, 2004). This is further
compounded by the fact that economic loss estimation
seldom focus on the magnitude of such losses, relative to
the communities who experience them (i.e. the value of
$1 may greatly vary between and within specific
communities). The global concern herein, lies in the fact
that many research bodies have concluded that due to
climate change, there is expected to be a higher
frequency and/or magnitude of natural disaster
occurrence in the future. Technical responses have been
favored in the past to address hazards and the
occurrence of extreme events, but over the past decades
this focus has shifted to vulnerability and in particular the
role DRR can play in reducing vulnerability to hazards
and extreme events (O´ Brain et al., 2008). In order to
improve efforts towards minimizing disaster risks, many
organizations have accordingly placed greater
importance on lessons learned from past initiatives. This
has not only provided knowledge sharing through proof of
concepts, but has also allowed for greater innovation at
various levels and scales.
Presented in this paper, are lessons learned from a
community-based Disaster Risk Reduction Program,
through employing specific evaluation criterion.
METHODOLOGY
This approach was implemented by an NGO, the Society
for National Integration through Rural Development
(SNIRD), towards addressing community vulnerability to
natural disasters. This was taken up as part of its
mandate to support development of impoverished and
marginalized groups within the state of Andhra Pradesh,
India. The project is presented in a case study hereafter,
and is further discussed within the context of disaster risk
reduction through reducing community vulnerability. The
assessment of the intervention and resultant discussion
thereafter was based on the Hyogo Framework for Action
(HFA), which has been amended to provide a more
practical assessment of such an intervention.
The Hyogo Framework Action as an evaluation tool
The HFA, was developed as an overarching instrument
that covers a broad range of issues which directly relate
to Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and community
resilience (or vulnerability) and has been internationally
agreed upon (UNISDR, 2005). The five thematic areas
enshrined within this framework are accordingly:
1. Governance
2. Risk Assessment
3. Knowledge and Education
4. Risk Management and Vulnerability Reduction
5. Disaster Preparedness and Response
A more elaborate discussion on these themes can be
found in Twigg (2007). Importantly, he notes that most
practitioners will usually only focus on certain of these
themes and certain aspects within these themes. The
format as it is may well be a valuable guide for planners
and practitioners towards evaluation, but in the context of
community-based projects, it does not make specific
considerations for efficiency (use of project resources),
sustainability and replicability. These three sub-themes
have thus been added under a sixth theme,
effectiveness, for project evaluation and discussion. In
addition to this, it must also be noted that not all actions
are able to consider and holistically address all these
themes for two specific reasons:
1. In most cases, there are limitations to what can
be done based on various factors, such as
availability of time, funding, political impasses
etc.
2. Within any given action, there may be trade-offs
between various sub-themes, e.g. losing
community interest or involvement (especially in
more rural communities) when scientific
processes and technology are given priority
For these reasons, these types of practical impasses
were carefully considered while conducting the
evaluating, as Twigg (2007) notes, each project is context
specific and should accordingly be treated individually.
Case Study: Reducing risk and strengthening
vulnerability in Chandrasekhapuram
The socio-cultural framework in Chandrasekharpuram
fisherfolk village of Vidavalur Mandal in Nellore District of

3. Alternate livelihood income plan for vulnerability reduction through community based disaster preparedness
J. Agric. Econ. Rural Devel. 061
Andhra Pradesh, India represents a unique set of
problems and challenges. This Village has faced multiple
disasters over the past years, including storm surges,
cyclones and the tsunami of 2004. The increasing
incidence of disasters has made the community believe
that disaster preparedness is critical in protecting their
lives and property thereby reducing their vulnerability.
This project was thus planned in conjunction with the
village leadership and sought to address their
vulnerability to the occurrence of such disasters, through
a community-centered approach. This was espoused
through a community developmental concept, namely,
the Alternate Livelihood Income Plan (ALIP). The
keynotes of this method was to address the target
beneficiaries‟ preparedness measures to reduce risks
and vulnerability- thereby sustaining their livelihoods, and
in establishing community level emergency response
mechanisms.
This project was carried out over the period of one year
and was done so by three field staff members. Their
functions were mainly facilitation of informal community
discussions, meetings with community leaders and
organizations and various training initiatives for the
community.
The Alternate Livelihood Income Plan (ALIP)
The Alternate Livelihood Income Plan takes shape when
the community assesses the situation in the village and
develops a list of activities that they agree to follow to
minimize the vulnerability and risks in the event of a
natural calamity. The plan also has specific actions to be
taken by individuals of the community so that each one
knows what he/she has to do when a threat warning is
received. During this process, the community is able to
simultaneously plan business activities which will be best
suited to utilize their available resources in a sustainable
manner, which offers such development minimal risk to
disaster occurrence. In order to enact the ALIP the
following objective and strategic framework was designed
and implemented:
Project Objectives:
 To minimize the loss of lives and community
assets due to natural or man-made disasters,
and contribute to preparedness and resilience
building for all
 Formation of Community Based Organizations
(CBOs) and Mutually Aided Cooperative Thrift
Societies (MACTS), towards community
organization, economic interventions, capacity
building of leaders, for the benefit of improved
community-based risk reduction and disaster
preparedness
 To raise community awareness about their
vulnerability to natural hazards and to organize
them in various task force teams in dealing with
the impending disasters as first responders
 To strengthen DRM policy instruments through
the preparation of a Contingency Plan at village
level that will contribute towards change through
people-centered vulnerability reduction, thereby
sustaining their livelihoods
 To Inculcate a culture of preparedness within the
community and ensure that the preparedness
initiative gains are not lost through future
calamities/disasters
Project Strategies:
 Participation of community in the development of
a community-based DRR initiative (Newport and
Godfrey, 1996)
 Building a pool of internal facilitators within the
community, and enhancing their skills towards
hazard assessment and risk management efforts
(Newport and Godfrey, 1998)
 Creating mechanisms that ensure meaningful
participation by rural women in all project
components and sub-components (e.g. women´s
Self Help Groups) (Newport and Kumar, 2005)
 Promotion of women empowerment through
facilitation of women leaders in the community
 Promoting project sustainability through
economic development initiatives and
formationstrengthening of CBO structures
 Developing linkages with institutional first
responder Government Departments by the
target group at the community level.
 Forming linkages with various development
institutions in sustaining livelihood interventions
(Newport and Godfrey 2001)
SNIRD‟s approach towards community disaster
preparedness was to involve the community in
vulnerability analysis and initiate preparedness
measures, thereby planning alternate livelihoods that
would sustain their income during periods of disasters
and minimize loss during occurrence of disasters. The
participatory Contingency Plan development process
incorporated a number of fundamental building blocks, in
which the community actively participated in making the
Village level Contingency Plan a reality. The processes
included were:
Community mobilization - The project supported the
engagement of community members to orient themselves
to the project objectives to attain a state of readiness for
full operation of the disaster preparedness project.
Participatory Planning - The project used the
techniques of community-based Participatory Planning,
such as Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) to involve
the community in the formulation of their own village level

4. Alternate livelihood income plan for vulnerability reduction through community based disaster preparedness
Newport et al. 062
Figure 1: Chandrasekhapuram, Vidavalur
mandal, Andhra Pradesh
Contingency Plan.
Task Force Formation - The project developed the
capability and the capacity of the community members to
form village level taskforce teams to plan for the
implementation of its operations during disasters.
Village Level Contingency Plan - Response Plan of the
community is the present document that puts forth the
response and coping mechanism of the village members.
Build Capacities for implementation of Contingency
Plan - The project will follow up the Plan Process and
emergency response mechanism through Mock drills as
an integral part of the emergency preparedness project.
Alternate Livelihood Income Plan - Based on
participatory planning, considering the seasonality of the
village the Alternate Livelihood Income Plan was
prepared and implemented by involving the
CBOs/MACTS for vulnerability reduction through
enhancement of livelihood options.
Village Profile
History of the Village
In 1975, people of this village lived adjacent to the
seashore. During this period disasters affected their
village due to their proximity to the sea and the losses
were substantial. They faced many problems like salt
water infusion into drinking water sources, diseases and
transportation problems. In 1978, the government forcibly
shifted them away from that locality to the high level area
located about 1 km from the shoreline. The location of the
village is given in Figure: 1.
Administration - The Kapu System
The Kapu means a person who is the Village Leader and
he is responsible for social control among the community.
The Kapu system is hereditary in nature and reduces the
possibility of conflict among the various sections of the
community, settle grievances, dispense justice and
maintain peace. Totally three persons are appointed as
Kapus‟ of a fisher village with the first being the headman
and the other two being his deputies. In
Chandrasekhapuram village, the headman is
Bhichamgari Laxmaiah and Krishnapatnam Chandraiah
and Mamidi Venkateswarlu are the deputies. In this
leadership system, only men may participate, while
women would not even be allowed to attend village level
meetings.
Social Conditions
People of Chandrasekharpuram belong to the Pattapu
community. This community migrated to Andhra Pradesh
from Tamil Nadu many centuries ago. Parents typically
take their sons for fishing along with them right from the
age of 12 years. Currently, men wear dhotis and shirts
but some of the elders still wear the Gochi (a strip of cloth
that passes between their legs and is tucked into a string
tied around their waist). The head is covered with a piece
of cloth that is tied around the ears leaving the middle of
the scalp bare. The women wear saris. Pattapu people
speak the Pattapu language, which is a mixture of Tamil
& Telugu. This language has no script. Most of the men,
not only the elders but also the youth are addicted to
alcohol. The men are generally physically well-built,
courageous and confident by nature as they face many
dangers in life and threatening situations while at sea.
The villagers are Hindus, who worship Lord Rama and
thus far there is no temple for worship within the village.
Education
In this village there is no school (formal or informal);
consequently the children attend the school at
Ramatheertham, an adjoining town, for their primary
education. They go by auto rigshaw, for which they pay
monthly fee to the driver. The literacy level of this
community is around 25% and not even 15% of the
women are literate.

5. Alternate livelihood income plan for vulnerability reduction through community based disaster preparedness
J. Agric. Econ. Rural Devel. 063
Table 1. Seasonal desease prevalence in Chandrasekhapuram
Diseases Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Diarrhea   
Malaria  
Cold    
Fewer    
Table 2. Yearly family income and expenditure

Expenditure Amount $ Income Amount $
Rice & Grocery 266.67 Sale of Prawns & Fish 500.00
Medicines 133.34 Agriculture labour work 166.67
Clothing 60.00 Millet Cultivation 100.00
Alcohol, cigar, etc 46.67 Groundnut cultivation 116.67
Gear & Boat maintenance 133.34
Kerosene & Electricity 90.00
Diesel for Fishing 133.34
Miscellaneous 16.67
Total 880.03 883.34
Health Facilities
Previously the Government Public Health Centre Nurse
used to visit this village thrice a month but of late she is
not coming. In any emergency situation, the villagers
have to go to Ramatheertham or Vidavallur which is 4 km
from this village. Further, the prevalence of disease
during particular seasons is given in Table: 1.
Infrastructures
There are a total of 22 families in this village and 13
houses are RCC houses and the remaining 9 houses are
huts. All 22 houses have electricity supply connections.
There are totally 12 electric poles, which are in good
condition. In this village, the Panchayat (administrative
block) leaders had a pipeline installed for the supply of
water, but currently there is no water supply because of
bore well failure. The villagers are using water from small
hand bores for their cooking and cleaning purposes, of
which the details are given in the social map, presented
later in Figure: 2. This village does not have a drainage
system because of the sandy soil, which does not allow
for the stagnation of water. There are no household
toilets and open defecation is the prevailing practice,
leading to unsanitary condition of the village.
Road and Transportation
The access to Chandrasekhapuram village is by mud
road only. A gravel road from this village leads to
Ramatheertham main road and there is a cross road
inside the village. The distance from the village to the
main road is 300 m. There are bus facilities from Nellore
to the nearest main village, ~2 km (Ponapudi
Pedapalem). The bus makes 15 trips a day. Auto
rickshaw facilities are also available.
Livelihood Situation
90% of the villagers are engaged in marine fishing. The
women are often engaged in agricultural labour during
the off seasons of fishing. There are 6 women who are
head load fish vendors. Majority of the families belong to
below the poverty line, as they are dependent solely on
fishing and marine resources are being depleted at an
alarming rate, due to over fishing and destruction of fish
habitats. Middlemen exploit the fisher-folk because they
are unable to avail credit facilities from formal banking
institutions. Further, the Government is providing pension
to 4 village members only, of 3 $ (1 $ = Rs. 66) per
month.
Village Trade
The approximate details of income and yearly
expenditure of one family is given in Table: 2.
Wealth Ranking
All the villagers are fishermen. The main criteria taken for
wealth ranking is fishing, fishing assets, land holding,
livestock, employment patterns, house types and
dependents. Based on these criteria, all 22 families
belong to below poverty line category. The occupation
details are given in Table: 3.
Land Ownership
Two persons have 2 acres of agriculture land and they
are cultivating paddy. 20 persons have occupied

6. Alternate livelihood income plan for vulnerability reduction through community based disaster preparedness
Newport et al. 064
Table 3: Chandrasekhapuram occupation details aggregated based on gender

Occupation Male Female Total
Fishing 19 0 19
Fish Vending 0 6 6
Agriculture 3 0 3
Agriculture Labour 0 19 19
Total 22 25 47

Figure 2: Chandrasekhapuram Social Map, compiled by Task Force (not to scale)
Figure 3: Chandrasekhapuram Hazard Map, compiled by Task Force (not to scale)
forestland. They have 30 cents per person and they are
cultivating raagi (millet). The details of agriculture
seasonality are in Table: 4.
Village Level Institutions
There are 2 women Self Help Groups (SHGs) in this
village. One group is 18 months old and have a savings
of 98.67 $ per member and the other group is 6 months
old have a savings of 22.67 $ per member. There is a fish
workers union (Samudra Theera Matsya Karmikula
Union) that represents the issues of fisher folk at wider
level. There are 12 members who have enrolled in this
union from this village.

7. Alternate livelihood income plan for vulnerability reduction through community based disaster preparedness
J. Agric. Econ. Rural Devel. 065
Table 4. Chandrasekhapuram agricultural seasonality of main crops in village
Diseases Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Paddy × × × × × ×
Ground nut × × × ×
Raggi × × ×
(Millet)
Table 5. Potential hazards sites near Chandrasekhapuram 

Risk Site Distance (Km.) Current Situation
Sea
(Bay of Bengal)
1 Km from the village The height of the waves will rise very high during
the spring tides. Due to the sea erosion caused post
tsunami, the sea water is coming closer to the
village
Stream
(Buckingham Canal)
1 km from the village During the high tides the level of water in the canal
raises and poses a threat to the village because the
path leading to the main road gets inundated.
Well 0.5 km from the village The villagers are not using the water.
Figure 3. Venn Diagram showing distances of various institutions from Chandrasekhapuram
Participatory Rural Appraisal Tools
The community helped in a mapping exercise, as led by
the task force during their vulnerability assessment,
whereby the following maps were produced and the
subsequent information was collected.
Social mapping
PRA technique has been used to conduct social mapping
in this village. The details are given in Figure: 2. This
village is situated 4 km from Ramatheertham. The
Population of Chandrasekharapuram is 65 living in 22
houses of which, 13 are reinforced concrete houses and
the remaining 9 houses are thatched huts. The entire
village is comprised of the Pattapu community, which has
been classified as a Backward Community, according to
the Indian caste system.
Infrastructures that can be used as shelters during
calamities
There is no “Cyclone Shelter” in this village. Hence the
villagers will be shifted to the nearby village called

8. Alternate livelihood income plan for vulnerability reduction through community based disaster preparedness
Newport et al. 066
Table 6. Chandrasekhapuram Resource Map, compiled by Task Force (not to scale)
Table 6. Village livelihood assets

Occupation Asset Total Nos. Value in $
Fishing Fibre Boats 3 8525
Nets 5000 kg 34100
Theppa Large 2 3200
Theppa Small 5 2275
Agriculture Wet Land 2 acres 2275
Dry Land 6.6 acres 690
Table 7. Seasonality of fish varieties
Varieties Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Pomfrets * * *
Mackerels * * *
Rays *
Sardines * * * * *
Crabs * *
Catfish * *
Anchovies * *
Prawns * * *
Krill * *
Ribbon Fish * * * *
Chinese Pomfrets * * *
Horse Mackerel * *
Seer Fish * *
Busagadipalem, which is situated at a distance of 100
meters from this village. In Busagadipalem, the cyclone
shelter can accommodate the Chandrasekharapuram
families without any difficulty. In this village 5 families are
having bicycle.
Hazard mapping
The villagers were involved in hazard mapping and the
details are given in Figure: 3. The details of risk sites and
the distance from this village and the vulnerability
situations are given in Table: 5, based on community
discussions and site verifications.
Resource mapping
The villagers were involved in hazard mapping and the
details are given in Figure: 6. In the East, there are
agriculture lands 200 meter from this village. The western
extent comprises of agriculture and a sandy tract of land,
approximately 50 meter from this village. The village
Busagadipalem is situated in 50 meter to the northern
side. The south side comprises of sandy land 40 meter to
this village. The details of livelihood assets in this village
are in Table: 6. The fish varieties and the fishing seasons
are given in Table: 7. There are 3 Fibre Reinforced
Boats, in which 4 people can go for fishing in each boat.

9. Alternate livelihood income plan for vulnerability reduction through community based disaster preparedness
J. Agric. Econ. Rural Devel. 067
Table 8. MACTS Financial Statement (in USD, 1$ = Rs. 66)
Particulars Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Members (MACTS)
Financial Resource
Mobilization (in USD)
i) Internal Resources
Savings 32.00 4.67 4.67 4.67 4.67 4.67 4.67 4.67 4.67 4.67 4.67 4.67 83.33
Membership
Fee
0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17
Share Capital 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93
Member
Contribution
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other
Repayments
9.33 0.00 9.33 22.67 22.67 27.33 27.33 27.33 32.00
32.0
0
32.0
0
38.0
0
280.00
Grant
towards ice
box
0.00 0.00 77.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.33
Grant
towards fish
pickle unit
190.6
7
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 190.67
Sub Total 1
(Total
Internal
Resources)
233.3
3
4.67 91.33 27.33 27.33 32.00 32.00 32.00 36.67
36.6
7
36.6
7
42.6
7
633.33
ii) External
Sources
Banks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other
Sources
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 2 (Total
External
Resources)
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total
Amount
(Internal &
External)
233.3
3
4.67 91.33 27.33 27.33 32.00 32.00 32.00 36.67
36.6
7
36.6
7
42.6
7
633.33
Lending
Amount
Internal
Lending
(MACTS)
0.00 45.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.33 0.00 0.00 53.33 0.00 0.00
60.6
7
204.67
Amount lent
from external
sources
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 3 (total
amount to
be lent)
0.00 45.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.33 0.00 0.00 53.33 0.00 0.00
60.6
7
204.67
Interest on
Lending
(income)
Internal 0.00 0.00 0.67 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.67 2.67 2.67 3.33 22.00
External 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 4
(income
from
borrowing)
0.00 0.00 0.67 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.67 2.67 2.67 3.33 22.00
Expenditure
Rent &
Electricity
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

10. Alternate livelihood income plan for vulnerability reduction through community based disaster preparedness
Newport et al. 068
Table 9. Cont.
Furniture
and Fixtures
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Honorarium
and Travel
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Interest paid
to
members/ba
nks
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Principal
Paid
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Others 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sub Total 5
(Total
Expenditure
)
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Net Profit 1
(Total 4 – 5)
0.00 0.00 0.67 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.67 2.67 2.67 3.33 22.00
Wet Fish
(kg) (3 units)
300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 150 150 150 3150
Rate/Kg of
wet fish
2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Wet Fish
Amount
545.33
545.3
3
545.3
3
545.33
545.3
3
545.3
3
545.3
3
545.
33
545.
33
272.
67
272.
67
272.6
7
5,726.0
0
Fish Pickle
(kg) (3 Units)
300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 150 150 150 3150
Rate/kg of
fish pickle
2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67
Fish Pickle
Amount
818.00
818.0
0
818.0
0
818.00
818.0
0
818.0
0
818.0
0
818.
00
818.
00
409.
33
409.
33
409.3
3
8,590.0
0
Prawn Pickle
(kg)
75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 25 25 25 750
Rate/kg of
prawn pickle
3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33
Prawn
Pickle
Amount
227.33
227.3
3
227.3
3
227.33
227.3
3
227.3
3
227.3
3
227.
33
227.
33
76.0
0
76.0
0
76.00
2,274.0
0
Total 6 (Wet
Fish+Fish+
Prawn
Pickle)
1,590.6
7
1,590.
67
1,590.
67
1,590.
67
1,590.
67
1,590.
67
1,590.
67
1,59
0.67
1,59
0.67
758.
00
758.
00
758.0
0
16,590.
00
Wet Fish
(kg)
300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 150 150 150 3150
Rate/kg of
wet fish
3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33
Wet Fish
Amount
909.33
909.3
3
909.3
3
909.33
909.3
3
909.3
3
909.3
3
909.
33
909.
33
454.
67
454.
67
454.6
7
9,548.0
0
Fish Pickle
(kg)
300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 150 150 150 3150
Rate/Kg of
fish Pickle
3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33
Fish Pickle
Amount
909.33
909.3
3
909.3
3
909.33
909.3
3
909.3
3
909.3
3
909.
33
909.
33
454.
67
454.
67
454.6
7
9,548.0
0
Prawn Pickle
(kg)
75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 25 25 25 750
Rate/Kg of
Prawn Pickle
3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33
Prawn
Pickle
Amount
250.00
250.0
0
250.0
0
250.00
250.0
0
250.0
0
250.0
0
250.
00
250.
00
83.3
3
83.3
3
83.33
2,500.0
0
Total 7
(Wet
Fish+Fish
+Prawn
Pickle)
2,068.
67
2,068.
67
2,068.
67
2,068.
67
2,068.
67
2,068.
67
2,068.
67
2,068.6
7
2,068.6
7
992.
67
992.
67
992.
67
21,59
6.00

11. Alternate livelihood income plan for vulnerability reduction through community based disaster preparedness
J. Agric. Econ. Rural Devel. 069


Table 9. Cont.
Total 8
(Sub
Total 7 –
6)
478.0
0
478.0
0
478.0
0
478.00
478.0
0
478.0
0
478.0
0
478.0
0
478.00
234.6
7
234.6
7
234.6
7
5,006.
00
Expense
s
Ice 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 22.67 22.67 22.67 122.00
Packing/Weig
hing Machine
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ice
Boxes/Trays
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Packing
covers
0.00 3.33 0.00 0.00 3.33 0.00 0.00 3.33 0.00 0.00 3.33 0.00 13.33
Transportation
Charges
0.00 15.33 15.33
15.3
3
15.33 15.33 15.33 15.33 15.33 15.33 15.33 15.33 168.67
Miscellaneous 0.00 7.33 7.33 7.33 7.33 7.33 7.33 7.33 7.33 7.33 7.33 7.33 80.67
HR Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 9 (Total
Expenses)
0.00 26.00 22.67
22.6
7
26.00 22.67 40.67 44.00 40.67 45.33 48.67 45.33 384.67
Net Profit 2
(Total 8 – 9)
478.0
0
452.0
0
455.3
3
455.
33
452.0
0
455.3
3
437.3
3
434.0
0
437.3
3
189.3
3
186.0
0
189.3
3
4,621.33
Overall Profit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Net Profit1 +
Net Profit 2
478.0
0
452.0
0
456.0
0
457.
33
454.0
0
457.3
3
439.3
3
436.0
0
440.0
0
192.0
0
188.6
7
192.6
7
4,643.33
2 large theppa (boats) in which 6 people can go for
fishing in each one and 5 small theppa in which 2 people
can go for fishing in each one.
The fisherfolk use different varieties of nets to catch
different fish varieties, depending on the seasons. The
seeda vala (net) is used for catching pomfrets and
Chinese pomfrets, chuttu vala for mackerels, sanna royya
vala for prawns, vanjarau vala for seer fish, ring vala for
small fish varieties and appa vala for multi-purpose
catching.
Time Line
The time line exercise was conducted through discussion
with the village men and women, which revealed the
following information.
Population
Over the last few years, the population of the village has
decreased due to livelihood constraints. Some families
have migrated to other villages. At present, the
population is 65 and total number of families is 22.
Health
In the past, there were many health problems in the
village and the community depended on home/herbal
medicines. Now they are going to the nearest Public
Health Centre for treatment and medication. Earlier the
fisher folk were very superstitious, and believed diseases
were caused by evil spirits and depended on faith healers
but now the attitude has changed considerably.
Food
In the past the staple diet of the fisher community was
finger millet, locally known as raagi. They used to make
the raagi into porridge. Now they have become used to
consuming rice and are cultivating paddy on their own
lands. They also raise casuarina plantations on the
shoreline and sell the wood of this tree, when they need
money for celebrating village festivals.
Social Customs
In the past child marriages were very common. The age
difference between the husband and wife used to be
substantial. This has reduced considerably due to
interventions by the government, NGOs and Mahila
Sanghams, on awareness building.
Drinking Water
The availability of potable water is sufficient because
potable water is available at a depth of 20 to 25 ft. The
groundwater occurring beyond 25 ft is brackish and can

12. Alternate livelihood income plan for vulnerability reduction through community based disaster preparedness
Newport et al. 070
Table 9. SHG Financial Statement (in USD, 1$ = Rs. 66)
Particulars Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Jun
e
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
Members (SHGs) Financial Resource
Mobilization (USD)
i) Internal Resources
Savings
1,840
.00
17.33 17.33
17.3
3
17.3
3
17.3
3
17.3
3
17.3
3
17.3
3
17.3
3
17.3
3
17.3
3
2,030
.67
Membership Fee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
i) Activity – Credit for 5
motor/bore wells
0.00 0.00
378.6
7
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
378.6
7
ii) Activity – Seed capital (5 x
22 families)
0.00 0.00
1,136
.67
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,136
.67
Total 1 (Total Internal
Resources)
1,840
.00
17.33
1,532
.67
17.3
3
17.3
3
17.3
3
17.3
3
17.3
3
17.3
3
17.3
3
17.3
3
17.3
3
3,546
.00
ii) External Resources
Fisheries Department 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bank 0.00
1,515
.33
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,515
.33
Total 2 (Total External
Resource)
0.00
1,515
.33
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,515
.33
Total Amount (Internal +
External)
1,840
.00
1,532
.67
1,532
.67
17.3
3
17.3
3
17.3
3
17.3
3
17.3
3
17.3
3
17.3
3
17.3
3
17.3
3
5,061
.33
Lending Amounts
Internal Lending (SHGs)
1,742
.67
144.0
0
146.0
0
148.
67
152.
00
154.
67
157.
33
161.
33
163.
33
166.
67
171.
33
176.
00
3,484
.00
Amount to be lent from
external sources
0.00 0.00
1,515
.33
290.
00
292.
67
296.
00
284.
67
305.
33
309.
33
315.
33
321.
33
328.
00
4,258
.00
Total 3 (Total Amount to
be lent)
1,742
.67
144.0
0
1,661
.33
438.
67
444.
67
450.
67
442.
00
466.
67
472.
67
482.
00
492.
67
504.
00
7,742
.00
Interest Income on
Lending
Internal 17.33 16.67 18.00
20.0
0
21.3
3
22.6
7
24.0
0
26.0
0
27.3
3
28.6
7
30.0
0
32.0
0
284.0
0
External 15.33 15.33 15.33
15.3
3
15.3
3
15.3
3
15.3
3
15.3
3
15.3
3
15.3
3
15.3
3
15.3
3
184.0
0
Total 4 (Income from
borrowing)
32.67 32.00 33.33
35.3
3
36.6
7
38.0
0
39.3
3
41.3
3
42.6
7
44.0
0
45.3
3
47.3
3
468.0
0
Expenditure
Rent & Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Interest paid to
members/banks
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Principal Paid 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 5 (Total Expenditure) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Net Profit 1 (Sub Total 4 –
5)
32.67 32.00 33.33
35.3
3
36.6
7
38.0
0
39.3
3
41.3
3
42.6
7
44.0
0
45.3
3
47.3
3
468.0
0
Water Melon Production &
Sales
Water Melon (kg.) 0 0 0 0
250
0
250
0
250
0
0 0 0 0 0 7500
Rate/Kg of water melon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33 3.33 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33
Water Melon Amounts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
189.
33
189.
33
189.
33
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
568.0
0
Collective Production of
Ground Nut
Ground Nut (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
200
0
200
0
200
0
6000
Rate/kg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
20.0
0
20.0
0
20.0
0
20.00

13. Alternate livelihood income plan for vulnerability reduction through community based disaster preparedness
J. Agric. Econ. Rural Devel. 071
Table 10. Cont.
Ground Nut Amount
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0
0
0.0
0
909.
33
909.
33
909.
33
2,728.
00
Net Profit 2 (Water Melon &
Ground Nut)
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
189.
33
189.
33
189.
33
0.0
0
0.0
0
909.
33
909.
33
909.
33
3,296.
00
Overall Profit (Net Profit 1 + 2)
32.
67
32.
00
33.
33
35.
33
226.
00
227.
33
228.
67
41.
33
42.
67
953.
33
954.
67
956.
67
3,784.
00
Table 10. Evaluation framework base on the Hyogo Framework for Action
Thematic Area Main Components
1. Governance  Policy & planning
 Legal & regulatory systems
 Resources & capacities
 Integration with development
 Institutional mechanisms, capacities &
structures
 Political commitment
 Accountability & participation
2. Risk Assessment  Hazards/risk data & analysis
 Vulnerability & impact data/indicators
 Early Warning systems
 Scientific & technical innovation
3. Knowledge and Education  Information management & sharing
 Education & training
 Public awareness
 Learning and research
4. Risk Management and Vulnerability Reduction  Environmental & natural resource management;
 climate change adaptation
 Sustainable livelihoods
 Social protection
 Financial instruments
 Structural & technical measures
 Planning regimes
5. Disaster Preparedness Response  Organizational capacities & coordination
 Preparedness & contingency planning
 Emergency response mechanisms
 Participation & voluntarism
6. Effectiveness  Efficiency
 Sustainability
 Adaptability and Replicability
only be used for cleaning purposes.
Fishing
The fishing community people are considered by other
communities to be rough and uncivilized. They do not
have much exposure to modern technology and are
confined to their traditional ways of earning their
livelihood. Middlemen exploit them, thereby leaving them
poverty ridden and lacking development. Natural
calamities like cyclones, floods and other disasters are
other obstacles to their development. In the past, more
fish resources were available during certain seasons. At
present the declining fish resources are depriving them of
their livelihoods leading to severe poverty.
Livestock
In the past the fisher folk had few sheep or goats, which
used to graze on the sea coastal plains. These livestock
have gradually decreased due to most of the wastelands
being converted into shrimp ponds, leading to lack of
fodder availability.
Venn Diagram
The Venn Diagram exercise was conducted to collect the
distance of various institutions that are used by this
village. The details of information collected are given in
Figure: 4.

14. Alternate livelihood income plan for vulnerability reduction through community based disaster preparedness
Newport et al. 072
Community Interventions
During discussions with the villagers, they revealed that
their demand was greater for infrastructure development.
The community prioritized needs such as proper road
facilities to the village, regular public transport, cold
storage facilities for storing their catch, credit for
procuring fishing gear and seed capital for agriculture and
household latrines. Our observations however revealed
that there was a greater need for livelihood enhancement
towards vulnerability reduction, considering funding
limitations and the state of community-based disaster
preparedness. Hence livelihood interventions were
planned along with community based disaster
preparedness trainings and task force formation.
Task force members
The villagers selected 7 men and 3 women between the
ages of 24 to 38, as the task force committee members
for this village. Each task force committee member was
assigned with specific responsibilities during pre and post
disaster management. The Task Force members are
grouped and trained under Early Warning, First Aid/Water
and Sanitation, Shelter, Rescue and Evacuation, Relief
and Rehabilitation Committees.
Livelihood support and enhancement
It was decided to provide seed capital support for assets
worth 30 $ for a fish pickling unit, to 3 women
beneficiaries by the community and willingness/interest
shown by the beneficiaries. Since the nearest major
town, Nellore is 40 km away from this village, there was a
potential demand for fish pickle in Nellore and nearby
towns such as Kavali and Ongole. Hence, a total quantity
of 3 600 kg was planned to be procured locally at the rate
of 4 $ per kilogram and sold at the rate of 3 $ per kg. The
quality of the product (pickle) was to be monitored by
SNIRD, who was responsible for implementing the
intervention. Further was identified to provide assets
worth 35 $ for cold storage (ice box) to 3 beneficiaries,
who have fiber boats. The total cost was 70 $ for each
box, but the Government provided a subsidy of 35 $ for
each box. The ice box was procured from Nellore through
the governmental Fisheries Department. The cold chain
process was used to preserve fish products, thereby
ensuring a better price for their catch.
As per the Alternate Livelihood Income Plan (Table: 9
and Table: 10), there was an additional income of 1160 $
earned by these 6 beneficiaries through the fish pickling
business and cold storage as an alternate livelihood
income generation activity.
Community Investment
There were 2 SHGs, which had a total capital of 1726.67
$. Additional loan fund were mobilized from banks, of
1516.67 $ by these SHGs and a seed capital of 76.67 $
was provided for 5 bore wells- to irrigate the 7 acres of
land. The 23 members were sub-grouped into five
common interest groups, as they were responsible for the
maintenance of the bore wells and repayment of the
loans for each of the bore wells. Further, each SHG
member was provided additional credit, depending on
their need for crop support. There is a demand for
watermelon during summer months in this area. Hence,
the SHG members were motivated to cultivate
watermelon in February to March. Middlemen from
Nellore were coordinated with, to come to village point
and collect the fruit in lorry loads for sale in Nellore,
Kavali, and Ongole, as well as in Chennai markets. In
addition, the SHG members were motivated to cultivate
ground nut during the period July to September. The
produce was sold to middlemen who in turn sell it for oil
production. The ground nuts were collected from the
village point by the middlemen. Cultivation of watermelon
and ground nut generated an additional income of 172 $
per annum for each family in the village.
Role of CBOs/MACTS and SNIRD
Mutually Aided Cooperative Thrift Societies, comprising
of women members were registered at the District level,
comprising of an Executive body. NGO staff in turn
monitored the day to day activities of the MACTS.
Regular meetings and trainings were organized for
MACTS members towards capacity development in
financial management, proper loan utilization and in book
keeping. MACTS in turn, oversaw credit facilities for
economic interventions at village level, through the
SHGs.
The MACTS members from this village elected 10
members for the Community Based Organizations
(CBOs). These CBO members were given intensive
training on risk reduction and community based disaster
preparedness.
Project evaluation and discussion
Based on the HFA, the evaluation was conducted after
the project. This was done within the project context-
specifically the size of the project, community, social and
leadership structures and environmental setting. The
limited amount of time and resources available to the
implementing organization was also taken into
consideration during the evaluation process. The HFA
table, with the inclusion of the Effectiveness theme is
presented in Table: 11.
Governance
As this project was able to strengthen the local
governance on DRM, through the promulgation of the
village level Contingency Plan, there was moderate
success achieved towards more sound governance. This

15. Alternate livelihood income plan for vulnerability reduction through community based disaster preparedness
J. Agric. Econ. Rural Devel. 073
is based on the fact that Contingency Plans at village
level are supposed to feed into district level, which
consequently feeds into state level and ultimately national
level. Additionally this was perceived as a success as it
also integrated with community development and through
fostering greater community involvement also ensured
transparency and accountability. The only weakness in
this framework, with regards to governance, was that
there was not greater involvement in the planning and
execution of the project with governmental agencies and
competent authorities. Due to this fact, there was not
political commitment towards DRR towards the benefit of
the community. However, the target community, who
have been made aware of their vulnerabilities, who were
able to identify their needs and whose CGOs and
relevant leadership structures have been strengthened
may well be able to better negotiate with public entities
for their rights and entitlements in future.
Risk Assessment
The risk assessment conducted was done in a non-
technical manner by the community with the help of
SNIRD through guidance, training and community
organization. For this theme there was a minor level of
success achieved. Herein lies a significant trade-off in the
fact that more accurate scientific methods were not used,
as this may have led to the community losing interest and
imparted a feeling of condescension- as has been noted
in past activities. Even so, the project framework may
have reduced accuracy of the various assessment results
(section 3), but did manage to incorporate the community
into part of the technical process which creates a
scientific and technical basis for the community to build
onto in the future. To overcome this issue, there would
need to be more networking and inclusion of research
and tertiary education instituted, where information can
be dispersed such as early warnings of natural disasters.
Knowledge and Education
The target community, specifically the women, was able
to receive training in disaster risk and vulnerability
assessment, DRM, leadership and financial
management. To this end, the education and knowledge
sharing of the project was a moderate success, as they
have been empowered to take up a more active role in
improving DRM and also in achieving financial and social
security through reduced vulnerability. The sharing of
knowledge about the project however was not optimized
as the network of NGOs and various institutions are
somewhat fragmented in this region and thus there was
no easily accessible platform for workshops, trainings
and conferences- this is partly owing to the fact that
initiating such events were outside the scope of the
project.
Risk Management and Vulnerability Reduction
This theme was perhaps the greatest success of the
project, in that all of the elements listed under it were
addressed through the task force formation and training,
and initiation of alternate livelihoods practices for the
villagers. On average the project was able to increase the
income of each household by ~19.5 %, while increasing
the average annual disposable income by 172 $ from
3.31 $. Although the project was able to also provide
credit facilities where they were previously unattainable,
there was no incentive by the community to pursue other
financial instruments such as insurance. This was mostly
based on the fact that individually, none of the families
had sufficient assets to warrant taking insurance, and
jointly not all were in favor of spending money without
any immediate and/or tangible benefit. This is partly
because of a generational lack of education and partly
because of traditional customs.
Disaster Preparedness Response
There was a high level of success achieved towards
addressing the elements listed under this theme, as there
was inclusive contingency planning, capacity building,
emergency response mechanisms were put in place and
community participation was 100%. It was however
outside of the scope of the project to include neighboring
villages in the initiatives, which does weaken the potential
level of coordination. Also there needs to be greater
coordination through inclusion of such programs under
central networks instituted through the public and private
sectors as many villages (hundreds), will most likely be
affected by a disaster such as a flood.
Effectiveness
Given the relatively small scale of the initiative and
resources used, this approach was quite successful, in
that a good level of potential sustainability was achieved
with relatively few resources. This success was based on
the relatively big part the community themselves played
in the implementation of the project. Making women a
core element in the socio-economic development process
was also a great innovation of the project, in that it
addresses not only inequality, but may have many knock-
on effects, such as improved education, gender equity,
household security etc. as women are the custodians of
the home and thus a core element of the larger
community. Linking of the CBOs to the socio-economic
development also ensures a level of project sustainability
as there will be a need for ongoing development within
such communities in the foreseeable future. This project
was found to be easy replicable as it relied on relatively
little resources and was not highly technical in nature.

16. Alternate livelihood income plan for vulnerability reduction through community based disaster preparedness
Newport et al. 074
CONCLUSION
Based on the practical experiences and knowledge of our
intervention as diversified practices on fish related
activities and agriculture will be replicable model in
similar disaster prone areas. As previously mentioned not
all thematic areas of the HFA can be implemented in one
initiative, but there needs at least some of the areas of
each theme need to be represented within a project
framework to achieve a more holistic and sustainable
approach.
The main areas of concern however still remain
institutional coordination and synergy between relevant
stakeholders within the DRR community. As noted by
Twigg (2007), there is also a need for synergy and
emergence of a more common framework for DRR
initiatives and their evaluation. Even though each
initiative must be uniquely tailored to the prevalent
circumstances, a more common qualitative assessment
framework, may pave the way for more common
quantitative assessment frameworks in the future. In
addition, it was found that there needs to be more
specific and clearly defined inclusion of the role of women
and women empowerment in DRR.
Also it is important that more such examples or case
studies of DRR are placed in the public domain for wider
knowledge sharing and further scrutinization by the
scientific community, in order to enable more focused
and informed policies and policy instruments.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors acknowledged the contributions of Gertrud
Buchenrieder, Nikolaos Hasanagas, Dr. Diana Marin and
Triet Tran for donating their time, critical evaluation,
constructive comments, and invaluable assistance toward
the improvement of this very manuscript.
REFERENCES
International Federation of Red Cross Red Crescent
Societies (IFRC) (2004). World Disasters Report 2004,
IFRC, Geneva
Leichenko RM, O‟Brien KL (2008). Environmental
Change and Globalization: Double Exposures, Oxford
University Press, New York
Dilley M, Chen RS, Deichmann U, Lerner-Lam AL, Arnold
M, Agwe J, Buys P, Kjekstad O, Lyon B, Yetman G
(2005). Natural disaster hotspots: a global risk analysis,
Disaster Risk Management Working Paper Series no.
5, The World Bank, Hazard Management Unit,
Washington DC
Newport JK, Godfrey JGP (1996). „India – Training for a
Safer Future‟, Stop Disasters, no.1, pp. 8-9.
Newport JK, Godfrey JGP (1998) „Crisis Management by
Community Participation‟, International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters, pp. 363-370.
Newport JK, Godfrey JGP (2001) „Community
Participation in Water related Disaster Management‟,
Confluence, pp. 79-86.
Newport JK, Kumar ATS (2005). Role of Micro Finance in
Disaster Mitigation. Disaster Prevention and
Management, pp. 176-182.
O‟Brien K, Sygna L, Leichenko R, Adger WN, Barnett J,
Mitchell T, Schipper L, Tanner T, Vogel C, Mortreux C
(2008). Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change
Adaptation and Human Security, Report prepared for
the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the
Global Environmental Change and Human Security
(GECHS) Project, GECHS Report 2008:3, University of
Oslo
Schipper L (2008). Two roads become one? Exploring
the linkages between climate change adaptation and
disaster risk reduction, (Draft Background Paper),
Harbin Alliance
Thomalla F, Downing, T, Spanger-Siegfried E, Han G,
Rockström J (2006). „Reducing hazard vulnerability:
towards a common approach between disaster risk
reduction and climate adaptation‟, Disasters, vol. 30,
no1, pp. 39−48.
Twigg J (2007). Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient
Community: A Guidance Note, DFID: Disaster Risk
Reduction Interagency Coordination Group.
UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
(UNISDR) (2005). Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-
2015: Building the resilience of nations and
communities to disaster: final report, World Conference
on Disaster Reduction.
Yodamani S (2000). „Disaster Risk Management and
Vulnerability Reduction: Protecting the Poor‟, The Asia
and Pacific Forum on Poverty, The Asian Development
Bank.
Accepted 15 October, 2015
Citation: Newport JK, Möller JJ, Newport KJ, Godfrey A,
Jawahar GGP (2016). Alternate livelihood income plan
for vulnerability reduction through community based
disaster preparedness. Journal of Agricultural Economics
and Rural Development, 3(1): 060-074.
Copyright: © 2016 Newport et al. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are cited.