What contribution can geographers make to moderate the impact of natural hazards?

Authors Avatar

What contribution can geographers make to moderate the impact of natural hazards?

saybank.co.uk 

What is a 'natural hazard'?

Traditionally, the term 'natural hazard' was an easy concept to define. It referred to any event with its origins in natural phenomena, such as earth movements or weather, which caused human suffering in the form of life-loss, injury or economic hardship. Almost all disasters were seen as natural - earthquakes, famine, floods and hurricanes, for instance - often with implications of divine judgement or ill fate, but only rarely was human culpability suggested. More recently, however, the idea that disasters may be partially human-induced has been proposed - with considerable vehemence in the case of many environmental movements. For instance, the deforestration of steep slopes in the Himalayas, is now widely-accepted as a cause of an increased frequency of landslides, and has even been suggested as the cause of flooding as far away as Bangladesh. Today, therefore, although the name 'natural' hazards remains, the human component is being shown to be of increasing importance.

The human interaction with hazards is of crucial importance in another way as well, since a distinction must be drawn between a 'hazard' (which is, the natural phenomenon itself) and a 'disaster', which is the negative impact of a hazard on people. Indeed, according to White (1977), the human component is of paramount importance:

        'By definition, no natural hazard exists apart from human adjustment to it.'

        In effect, a 'disaster' cannot actually occur, unless there are people present to feel its negative impacts. In this way, the number of disasters is often said to be increasing owing to the rising global population, and, in particular, the fact that this forces more people into living in vulnerable environments.

When the impact of natural hazards is put in perspective, however, the effect which it has on humans can seem minimal - worldwide there are more deaths from car accidents than from natural hazards (Varley, 1994), and a simple lack of primary healthcare in many countries is almost certainly the world's biggest killer.

        'From a strict cost assessment, one might argue that society should let nature take its course, and put its resources into minimising medical risks and everyday accidents.'

(Lundgren, 1988: 761)

        This Marxist perspective on hazard management is, in my opinion, an important one to consider, as it can interact with already-existing development programmes. That is not to diminish the direct impact of the hazard itself, however. For the area which is hit, the effects (both economically and in human terms) can be devastating. Estimates of the economic costs of natural hazards for the United States of America alone, vary from $5 to 10 billion per annum (Rossi et al., 1983).

The ultimate decision, which I will be debating in the essay, therefore, is whether to tackle the issue of natural hazards from a technological standpoint - trying to find solutions to the physical consequences of a disaster - or whether it should be approached from a social point-of-view, by looking at the underdevelopment issue, which theoretically makes people more vulnerable. At the moment, most disaster-prevention techniques used are on the technical side. This is probably partly because the hazard itself provides a more easily-identifiable target for assistance, than opening the can of worms of development issues. The Developed World, where most of the funding originates, is also far more enthusiastic about spending on research programmes which might ultimately be of benefit to them, than improving primary healthcare in a remote region of Africa. Linked to this is the prestige involved in disaster research and relief, which outweighs more mundane development projects. However, in the eyes of the public, who ultimately have a say in how public and private funds are spent, the idea that natural disasters and development issues are inter-related has been propagated, as a way to increase donations, as the economically-downtrodden are seen as being dealt a final blow by nature; but how accurate is this image?

Disasters and Development Issues

        Many authors writing on the issue of 'natural' disasters are writing from a Marxist perspective (O'Keefe and Watts, for instance). The underlying suggestion being that hazard events become disasters more commonly in a setting of underdevelopment and poverty, than in the Developed World. This Marxist theory follows four main lines of argument: 1) exploitation of the Third World increases the frequency of natural disasters, as socio-economic conditions and the physical environment deteriorate; 2) the poorest classes suffer the most; 3) disaster relief maintains the status quo; and 4) measures to prevent or minimise the effects of disasters which rely on high-tech solutions, reinforce the conditions of underdevelopment, exploitation and poverty (Bryant, 1991).

Join now!

These viewpoints aim to, 'take the naturalness out of natural disasters' (O'Keefe et al., 1976: 1) by emphasising human responsibility (and especially that of the rich North). The new assertion is that disasters do not simply happen, but are caused (Oliver-Smith, 1994). In many respects this is an appropriate stance to take. The frequency of disasters has not increased considerably over the past twenty years, and yet human and material losses have; this, it can be argued, is a response to increasing poverty and domination in less-developed countries. Furthermore, hazards of similar severity often have dramatically differing impacts in the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay