While technology cannot be used to prevent the causes of all hazards, technology can also be used to modify the event. Earthquakes is a good example of a hazard where the earthquake itself does not usually cause the loss of lives, rather, it is usually its effect on other structures that causes the most destruction, such as the toppling of buildings or causing landslides. As such, a good method of earthquake management would be to equip buildings with the ability to withstand the impact of earthquakes, using various architectural designs. A famous example of an earthquake resistant building is Taipei 101, which foundation is reinforced 80 metres deep into the ground and has a steel ball known as a tuned mass damper which balances the building. During its construction in 2002, Taipei experienced a 6.8 magnitude earthquake, and yet the skyscraper did not topple and experienced no structural damages. Sometimes, such as in certain Japanese house designs, the houses are not built to withstand earthquakes but such that it moves along with the earthquake, using grooves rather than nails to fit the house together. Furthermore, the light wood has lower probability of killing people if it topples. These different designs show how it is possible to use knowledge of engineering and architecture to reduce the impact of hazards.
Modifying vulnerability is another approach to hazard management which aims to increase preparedness of people themselves to tackle the hazard when it occur, including methods such as increasing community preparedness, planning, developing warning systems, and changing perceptions. Community preparedness is essential in all communities where hazard occurrence is frequent, to train and educate people as to how to respond to a hazard and drawing out evacuation plans, and stocking up emergency supplies of food, water and medicine. Also, people can be trained in first aid, search and rescue, and firefighting, etc. In some cases, this is much more feasible than using technology, when the cost is too high. A case study of Norway, where avalanches are frequent, is a good example. Due to the fact that neither relocation nor retrofitting buildings was a feasible option, the most cost effective plan would be to decrease vulnerability. This was done mainly through setting up a warning system, and coming up with a plan to organize an evacuation, by appointing a group of representatives from each community and training the people on how to react. The plan was highly successful, showing the merit in proper planning and preparedness.
In many ways the perception and awareness of the community to hazards is very important. Changing the perception of people is also essential in reducing the impacts of hazards, for negative perception by a group of people can ultimately lead many deaths, in cases where communities, especially in LEDCs, are resigned to the fact that nothing can be done to prevent hazard occurrence and that hazards are unavoidable and look upon them as a way of life. Even in MEDCs, perceptions can cause problems. There is a case where, during the evacuation for Hurricane Katrina, some of the elderly did not want evacuate, because of fear of new living conditions, or that they do not want to leave their home. This contributed to the majority of the deaths being the elderly in these events. Thus, changing the perceptions of various peoples in different cultural contexts plays a large role in hazard management, ensuring that the community would want to save themselves in the first place. In all, modifying vulnerability can ultimately lead to people knowing how to react to hazards and thus reduces the negative effects of them.
In many cases, managing the cause of natural hazards may bring certain disadvantages, for most natural hazards, while posing a threat to humans, are actually only natural phenomenon, and at times have benefits to us and the environment. A very good example is the case of a flood, where people have tried to create physical barriers to contain the flood water such as levees and dams. While this may be applicable to MEDCs, for many agricultural communities, such an approach is inapplicable, for they depend on the floodplain where there is a high amount of nutrients, deposited by flooding, and supply of water. In these contexts, such as in Bangladesh, where the people depend on these floods, the prevention of the “hazard” would uproot their way of life. In this way, floods need not always be treated as negative phenomena, causing damage in only certain contexts.
In my opinion, modifying the vulnerability, not the cause should be the main aim of hazard management. This holds since there are two factors contributing to risk: hazard and vulnerability. Since eliminating the hazard is totally unfeasible in many large-scale hazards, the best thing to manage should be human vulnerability. Since the main aim should be centered on that can be applicable to all communities, it should be something feasible in contexts where there is lack of economic and technological resources, thus ruling out modifying the event as a potential main aim. As such, hazard management should not be centered on technology, such as the retrofitting of buildings, but rather something like education, which is more cost effective. In all, the main aim should be to increase the resilience of the people themselves to tackle the hazard. For example, in the case of Bangladesh, people adapt to the floods and learn to use it to their own benefit, neither seeing it as a negative phenomenon, nor something they should fear. After changing any negative perceptions of hazards in communities, community preparedness is essential. A bottom up approach equips people with the ability to save their own lives rather than being dependant on others. In fact, it has been shown that this approach works much better than international aid or rescuers from the military. For example, the rescue efforts to the floods in Mozambique in 2001 was a success, not because of anything else, but more of the fact that the people were trained in how to respond, and that there was a clearly drawn out evacuation plan and appointed leaders in the community.
Mozambique, though being one of the poorest countries in the world, has managed to increase community preparedness, thus showing how this approach to hazard management, may just be the most universal method of tackling hazards, which works regardless of affluence. In conclusion, it is true that hazard management should be primarily about reacting to the hazards and reducing the damage it brings, rather than trying to prevent it. Still, as technology continues to develop, we cannot eliminate it as an essential part of hazard management, for what may not be possible to prevent now, may be in the future. So, both sides of the equation must be considered to tackle risk effectively, depending on the context.
