Why Are Natural Hazards Rarely Completely Natural?

It is not debatable that hurricanes cannot be generated, or fought, by humans. Hurricane Charley hit the coast of Florida on Sunday, August the 13th 2004. It was the most devastating hurricane to hit the area since 1921. It came from the Gulf of Mexico with a strength of 120mph, and it was warned by officials that the hurricane could submerge parts of the city of Tampa, eastern Florida. This caused mass panic as residents tried to flee, blocking bridges and infrastructure. Again, had the area been unoccupied, the hurricane would have remained a natural process rather than becoming a natural hazard. The fact was, that of the 17 million residents of Florida, 6.5 million residents were in the hurricane’s path of devastation. The hurricane tore westerly across Florida, before eventually losing its strength and blowing itself out after a couple of days. The damages amounted to nearly £10 billion across the state. Loss to the local economy was also suffered, even by those who did not have to pay for repairs. For example, the empire of Disney attractions was closed down for the duration of the hurricane, even though the hurricane did not reach this far inland. The point that this case proves, is that the mere presence of the residents and tourists in Florida transformed it from a Natural Process to a Natural Disaster. Therefore it was not an entirely natural occurrence.

My final case study looks at the recent occurrence of earthquakes in Japan. On Monday the 4th September 2004, two offshore earthquakes were measured. The first, which was 30 miles off the west coast of Japan, measured 6.8 on the Richter scale. The second quake occurred five hours later, and was further out to sea. It measured 7.3 on the Richter scale. The earthquakes created tidal waves which proceeded to assail the shore of Japan. At least three people were injured or killed as a result of each quake, not to mention the financial damage that was inflicted upon the marine industries and the coastal areas. The cause of the earthquake could be linked back to the coastal cities and settlements. Japan is one of the most earthquake – prone countries in the world, due to the fact that it is located where the Pacific plate submerges beneath the Eurasian plate. This is a destructive boundary, and it explains why Japan suffers so badly from earthquakes. The construction of human settlements, (i.e. along the coast of Japan) so close so such a boundary is bound to have an effect upon the frequency of earthquakes due to the increased pressure inflicted on the earth’s crust. Although this is not entirely to blame, it can explain how the high frequency of earthquakes as a natural hazard is influenced by humans. Therefore the earthquakes are not entirely natural. Also, as I have suggested for the other case studies, the mere presence of humans at these areas of activity transforms a natural process to a natural hazard, and in the cases of extensive loss of life, a natural disaster.

In conclusion, it could be said that some types of natural hazards are more susceptible to human influence than others. Some natural hazards, such as landslides or avalanches, can be provoked by human activity. There are ways in which humans use and manipulate the landscape which can result in the triggering or worsening of some types of natural disaster. For example, a landslide may be triggered by heavy traffic on a road at the base of an unstable slope, or people skiing on unstable snow may trigger an avalanche. There are other, more sustained theories which explain the effects humans have on natural hazards. Deforested valley sides increase flood risk due to the lack of the vegetation intercepting the flow. Coal mining and reservoir construction can destabilise the land and trigger earthquakes. Where land is in short supply, unstable slopes are often built upon, triggering landslides. These are proven theories. However, it is not fair to say that humans create all Natural Hazards. That is why they are called Natural hazards. However, it could be argued that we unintentionally add to the intensity of a natural hazard, simply by going about our everyday lives. There are less obvious links between human activity and the occurrence of natural hazards. For example, could driving our cars add to global warming and be blamed for an increase in the effects of meteorological hazards, e.g. adding to levels of water evaporation, increasing flood risk and triggering hurricanes? Could human settlements being built close to volcanoes and fault lines apply pressure to the tectonic plates and trigger tectonic hazards such as volcanic eruptions and earthquakes? These theories should be considered when one is trying to find the bigger picture. Therefore, my argument is that it is extremely rare, if at all possible, that a natural hazard would be completely natural.