24/7 Customer support here

   Nonetheless, it is sometimes difficult to study the evolution of hazard impact. Moreover, data may be uncertain, inaccurate or unavailable. Data established before the beginning of the century can be incomplete and useless to compare trends between past and present. So, it is essential to gather reliable database. For instance, there are no available details about flooding on the Chesil Beach in 1903 in the report by Leland (1546) and Camden (1590). Moreover, figures can be under or over-estimated according to interests. For example, insurers may exaggerate them in order to less indemnify policyholders. Insurance is a means of lowering the cost by sharing the burden: a rate is determined according to the cost of an event.

   Moreover, hazard impact varies according to the space scale considered (local, regional, national, worldwide). The impact seems to be lower at national scale rather than at the local one since the cost may be shared. The choice of a similar timescale is also essential in order to compare hazard impact between two time periods. The most relevant one could be decades.

   Nevertheless, as far as Western world is concerned, the evolution of trends reveals that the impact is worse from an economic viewpoint. Recurrent damage and increasing reconstruction costs are observed throughout years. According to the UNESCO, economic costs caused by hazards doubled every 10 years and total cost could reach 150 milliard dollars in the next decade. The following graph underlines the rise of economic losses.

   Decadal losses from weather and climate hazards in USA: economic losses[6]
However, there seems to be a fall of fatalities in wealthiest countries. Indeed, if we consider the number of victims in American coastal and tornado prone areas, it is lower than before. It is explained by measures such as building regulation or by an improvement of weather forecasting. The following graph underscores the decline of deaths for both tornadoes and hurricanes
Decadal losses from weather and climate hazards in USA: life losses6

   So, hazard impact is not always getting worse. Firstly, consequences may be positive: it depends on CBA outcome. Are benefits higher than cost? Secondly, the cost may decrease throughout years. Thirdly, the impact is different between goods, lives or environment; so, there are different types of impacts. Finally, hazard impact does not have the same intensity everywhere.

The importance of hazard management

   The severity of an event is mostly determined by human response to hazard. So, impact is not similarly getting worse because of a wide range of hazard approaches. These are more or less efficient. Responses are sometimes unsuited or hazard policies are inexistent due to a lack of resources. Not only hazards create damage but also response has a cost. Keith Smith’s analysis of flooding in Bangladesh reveals that fewer inhabitants of Sonadia island in the Bay of Bengal were killed in 1991 floods compared to 1970: shelters had been constructed. But, it represented only 3 % of population at risk because the Bangladesh government did not have enough currency to build more. So, financial factor is essential in hazard mitigation. It may explain the divergence of hazard impact between LDCs and DCs.
Despite achievements of science and technology, man seems to be unable to protect lives, goods and environment against hazards. Natural events are sudden but most of the time, it is possible to forecast some of them thanks to advanced techniques in hazard prediction. Yet, human beings remain surprised by hazards when they occur. Subsequently, their decisions may be unsuited as they are taken too quickly. If people had thought on potential risks before, they would have been able to cope better with hazard. So, the impact is getting worse due to emergency unpreparedness.

   So, hazard impact is getting worse because of a failure in human response. Stages such as recovery after an event are essential since they enable people to lower the impact of a natural event. For instance, basic supplies such as food, water, clothing, shelter or medical care are provided during relief period to avoid further losses of life. Rehabilitation and reconstruction include “longer-term activities which attempt to return an area to normality after severe devastation”[7].

   However, not only the degree of impact depends on response during and after an extreme event but it also relies on measures adopted before it. A comprehensive hazard management that would include Environmental Impact Assessment, hazard zoning and prediction, land-use capability (RHS survey), enforcement of building codes, public safety measures is always needed but most of the time it is missing. “Environmental impact assessment” is relevant to manage hazard threat because it sets priorities. In general, there is a lack of “hazard-mitigation” whereas it is a relevant approach that aims at reducing losses through long-term strategies. “Hazard mitigation” is also required because it enables people to be committed and to be more aware of risk. Indeed, it involves individuals, private businesses and industries, state, local and federal government. To sum up, hazard impact is getting worse owing to a lack of pro-active responses.

   Moreover, awareness of risk is essential to avoid unpreparedness. For instance, “HAZUS Loss estimation models” forecast human and economic impacts. In addition, knowledge of magnitude and probable frequency (records and statistical methods) may help policy-makers to take adequate damage-reducing adjustments. Individuals have also to be aware of hazard threat. However, despite increased information and warning about the degree of risk, people do not change their settlements: individual interests are predominant and the risk is still denied. Otherwise, either people prefer to modify the physical event through large-scale “environment control” or they accept the loss. So, the impact of an event depends on people’s perception.

   It leads to the idea that hazard assessment is not only a rational and scientific knowledge of impact. It is uneasy to determine objectively whether or not consequences are worse. Indeed, hazards are seen through a “perception box” that may lower or increase the impact. For example, people think that the impact is getting worse only because insurers take time to reimburse damage caused by extreme catastrophes. Moreover, “Willingness To Pay” reflects the importance humans give to think. If they are not willing to make efforts, the impact will remain high. The feeling that hazard impact is getting worse varies either from individual to groups or between experts and non-expert. If the event took place a long time ago or is far in space, people do not feel concerned.

   To conclude, there is obviously a change in physical mechanisms. The so-called “global climate change” is seen as an explanation of a growing hazard impact. But it is actually getting worse as far as human beings are concerned. Interactions of human beings with their environment play an important part in global warning. Moreover, men do not take these new mechanisms into consideration. On the one hand, they tend to ignore physical risks (settlements in floodplains). On the other hand, new policies are needed with growing population since previous ones are not adapted yet. Most of the time, hazard management concentrates on response and recovery instead on focussing on forecasting and pre-planning policies. The degree of hazard impact relies on the efficiency of human management. That’s why hazard impact varies according to “hazard mitigation” strategy adopted. So, the impact is not equally getting worse because people cope with hazards in different ways. In addition, the hazard impact on environment, goods or lives varies because people do not give them the same importance.

   Yet, even if consequences of extreme events vary around the world, natural events remain a worldwide concern. Hazard impact physically crosses frontiers. It is also spread from an economic viewpoint because of globalisation and economic interdependence. But it is a pity that legislation and administration of the management response is not applied everywhere. Moreover, increasing international relations are not used to develop common policies such as European WFD. Hazard impact on LDCs will remain severe as long as international aid and humanitarian action after a catastrophe remain the only response.

REFERENCES

LITTERATURE

 Keith Smith (1992), Environmental hazards, Assessing Risk and reducing Disaster, Routledge

 R.U. Cooke (1987), “Geomorphology and Environmental Management”, in Mike J. Clark

 J.B. Whittow (1987), “Natural Hazards – Adjustment and Mitigation”, in Mike J. Clark

 Garrett Nagles (2002), Access to Geography, Climate and Society, Hodder and Stoughton Ed.

 Lisa K. Flax; Russel W. Jackson and David N. Stein, “Community Vulnerability Assessment Tool Methodology”, Natural Hazards review, November 2002: 163-176

WEBSITES

 About ESI maps, see http://www.response.restoration.noaa.gov/esi/esiintro.html
 UNESCO viewpoint available at http://www.unesco.org/most/isscreport.html
 About EMDAT database, see http://www.cred.be.emdat/
 About Hazus Loss Estimation Models, see http://www.fema.gov/hazus/eq_est.htm
 BBC Weather Center, available at http://www.bbc.co.uk
 “National Flood Insurance Program – Loss Statistics Between January 1, 1978 through report as of 09/30/1998”, available at
http://www.disastercenter.com/flood/Fldloos.html
 About Chesil beach flooding, see “Chiswell and Portland History and descriptions of the problems”, available at
http://www.geodata.soton.ac.uk/czm/html/coast25.html
 Final Report: Kingston Metropolitan Area Seismic Hazard Assessment - Executive Summary, Acknowledgements and Conclusions”, available at
http://www.oas.org/en/cdmp/document/kma/seismic/seis_sum.htm 

________________________________________
[1] Quote from Keith Smith, Environmental hazards, Assessing Risk and reducing Disaster (1992) (p24)
[2] Idea developed in Keith Smith, Environmental hazards, Assessing Risk and reducing Disaster (1992) (p40)
[3] Quote from Keith Smith, Environmental hazards, Assessing Risk and reducing Disaster, (1992) (p44)
[4] in J.B. Whittow (1987), Natural Hazards – Adjustment and Mitigation (p307).
[5] in Environmental hazards, Assessing Risk and reducing Disaster (1992), Keith Smith makes difference between impacts on environment (loss of flora and fauna, pollution, loss of amenity, degradation of landscape), goods (property damage, economic loss, infrastructure and road destruction) and life (death, injury, stress, disease) (p6)
[6] Source: After Riebsame, Diaz, Moses and Prices (1986), Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. In Keith Smith, Environmental hazards, Assessing Risk and reducing Disaster, (1992)

[7] Quote from Keith Smith, Environmental hazards, Assessing Risk and reducing Disaster (1992) (p22)

1  2

  BACK TO GEOGRAPHY