As risk continues to increase globally, largely driven by increasing numbers of people and infrastructure built in
highly exposed places, ‘the global community’ is exploring ways to reduce the occurrence of disasters (IPCC,
2012; UNISDR, 2011). Both the 2011 Global Assessment Report and the 2012 IPCC Special Report on Extreme
Events highlight that high exposure to hazard events results mainly from economic and demographic pressures
on land use, especially in densely populated coasts, rivers and mountains. While these places often are the
most productive or attractive locations to live, they are also potentially the most dangerous. It is also clear that
there are complex interactions between the interests of the private sector and those of the public sector where
governments are ultimately responsible for the safety of their citizens, for paying for disaster losses as well as
for making decisions about land use and how to allocate public funds for disaster risk reduction (DRR).
One of GAR 2013’s key questions is “how do investment decisions in the private sector (in a context of
incentives and regulation by the public sector) increase levels of disaster risk and, in some cases, transfer risk
from private investors to governments and to other sectors of society”. This paper responds to this question by
analyzing both private and public investment decisions and the interplay between regulations, acting as various
incentives or disincentives, with lessons learned from three case studies from Nepal, Spain and Vietnam. Based
on the UNISDR (2009) definition of risk as resulting from hazards, vulnerability and exposure, this paper focuses
primarily on drivers of exposure, as investment and regulatory decisions ultimately affect where people live
and under what conditions. Yet it is difficult to discuss reducing exposure without also including vulnerability
reduction. Nevertheless, true measures to reduce vulnerability1
and influence access to resources, is more the
domain of structural measures to reduce social inequalities, market access, literacy and poverty (Sen, 1982;
Wisner et al., 2004). However, it can be argued that land use planning can also be instrumental in adjusting
social inequalities by providing safer places to live, regulating land tenure issues and including marginalized
populations in participatory planning processes.