Abstract:In the Small Islands Developing State (SIDS) of St Vincent and the Grenadines in the Caribbean, the most destructive disasters in terms of human casualties have been the multiple eruptions of La Soufrière volcano situated in the north of St Vincent. Despite this major threat, people continue to live close to the volcano and national development plans do not include risk reduction measures for volcanic hazards. This paper examines the development options in volcanic SIDS and presents a number of conundrums for disaster risk management on the island of St Vincent. Improvements in monitoring of volcanic hazards and ongoing programmes to enhance communications systems and encourage community preparedness planning have increased awareness of the risks associated with volcanic hazards, yet this has not translated into more risk-informed development planning decisions. The current physical development plan in fact promotes investment in infrastructure in settlements located within the zone designated very high-hazard. However, this is not an anomaly or an irrational decision: severe space constraints in SIDS, as well as other historical social and economic factors, limit growth and options for low-risk development. Greater attention needs to be placed on developing measures to reduce risk, particularly from low-intensity hazards like ash, limiting where possible exposure to volcanic hazards and building the resilience of communities living in high-risk areas. This requires planning for both short-and longer-term impacts from renewed activity. Volcanic SIDS face multiple hazards because of their geography and topography, so development plans should identify these interconnected risks and options for their reduction, alongside measures aimed at improving personal preparedness plans so communities can learn to live with risk.

To secure development gains and help eradicate poverty in the long run, it is critical to strengthen exante disaster risk management (DRM) measures that build resilience at the household, firm and macro level. Decision-makers however often view DRM investments as a gamble that pays off only in the event of a disaster. This is despite increasing evidence that building resilience yields significant and tangible benefits, even if a disaster does not happen for many years. This chapter outlines the triple dividend of resilience as a new analytical method to enhance the business case for investments in building resilience. The three types of benefits are outlined that include: 1) avoiding losses when disasters strike; 2) unlocking development potential by stimulating economic activity thanks to reduced disaster-related investment risks; and 3) social, environmental and economic co-benefits associated with investments. The second and third dividends in particular are typically overlooked in appraisals around investment decisions, and can accrue even in the absence of disaster events. Presenting evidence of additional dividends to policy-makers and investors can provide a stronger case for investment in DRM, helping to reconcile short-and long-term objectives. This chapter provides the conceptual basis for the more detailed assessments of the resilience streams and implications for decision-makers provided in the following chapters.

Following a disaster, the majority of families rebuild their homes themselves. In this paper, we consider how the physical environment influences such 'self-recovery' by investigating disasters in the Philippines (typhoons Haiyan in 2013 and Haima in 2016) and Nepal (the 2015 Gorkha earthquake). Despite the many differences in the disaster contexts, there are some common barriers to self-recovery (and building back better) in a substantially changed and dynamic multi-hazard, post-disaster environment. These are related to changes in water supply (shortage or surplus), impacts of post-disaster geohazard events on infrastructure (particularly affecting transport) and the availability of technical advice. People face a broad spectrum of challenges as they recover and tackling these 'geo-barriers' may help to create a more enabling environment for self-recovery. The findings point to what needs to be in place to support self-recovery in dynamic physical environments, including geoscience information and advice, and restoration of infrastructure damaged by natural hazard events. Further research is necessary to understand the issues this raises for the shelter and geoscience communities, particularly around availability of geoscience expertise, capacity and information at a local scale. Highlights The research identifies that changes in the physical environment following a disaster have a significant influence on recovery.  There are potential opportunities to support self-recovery if geoscientists, humanitarian practitioners and affected communities work together.  The interdisciplinary approach taken in the research has yielded a more complete view of self-recovery as it is affected by the changing dynamics in the physical environment, and has highlighted what might be needed to support it.

No abstract