Natural Hazards and Disasters

Chapter 18 The Future: Where Do We Go From Here?

We Are The Problem

• Problems arise when people put themselves where they can be impacted by major natural events

Building in the floodplain

Building in lahar channels

Building in liquefaction-prone areas

Marina District, San Francisco, 1989

Sea Cliff Erosion Building near the shoreline in Hurricane-prone areas

NORMAL LAKE 1.0 FT LEVEL

SPH DESIGN ELEV 11.5 FT

17.5 FT

HURRICANEPROTECTION LEVEE& FLOODWALL

AVG ANNUAL HIGHWATER 14 FT18 FT PROJECT FLOWLINE

23 FT

FLOODWALL ALONGMISSISSIPPI RIVER

GENTILLYRIDGE

UNO

UN

O S

IDE

OF

WA

INR

IGH

T D

R

WA

INR

IGH

T D

RA

T L

.C.

SIM

ON

ST.

AN

TH

ON

Y A

TW

ILD

AIR

DR

DIL

LA

RD

UN

IVC

AM

PU

S

GE

NT

ILLY

BLV

DA

T A

LL

EN

DE

RB

IGN

Y A

T I

-10

ES

PL

AN

AD

E A

TS

T. C

LA

UD

E

ST.

LO

UIS

CA

TH

ED

RA

L

CA

NA

L S

T A

T R

IVE

R

EL

EV

AT

ION

S IN

FE

ET

NG

VD

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

B

LAKE

PONTCHARTRAIN

SHORE

RIV

ER

BA

NK

MIS

SIS

SIP

PI

A

Building below water levelin New Orleans--AFTER Katrina

Building along eroding cliffs

We Are The Problem

• Towns were located where suitable for earlier basic needs, but modern infrastructure is too entrenched for easy relocations

We Are The Problem

• People continue to make poor choices, based on:– leisure– recreation– aesthetics– convenience– economics (short-term gain, long-term loss)

Risk Assessment

• People understand that there are risks in life (?), and choose to accept some of them, or believe that risked event “won’t happen to me”

Hazard Assessment and Mitigation• We can control nature: True or False?

• The more we hold back the effect of large natural event, the worse the effect will eventually be

• Examples

Hazard Assessment and Mitigation• Short-term ‘cures’ to nature’s rampages:

short-term political considerations

• Fail to see that the more we hold back the effect of large natural event, the worse the effect will eventually be

Hazard Assessment and Mitigation• After major disasters, large-scale improvements are

rarely implemented

• Examples: Floods of ‘93, Katrina ‘05

• Preferred approach is to react after disaster

• It’s easy to forget after a few years…we have short memories

Hazard Assessment and Mitigation

• ‘Soft’ solutions include zoning to prevent building, strict building codes

->These are vigorously opposed by developers

• ‘Hard’ solutions include installing levees, concrete barriers, riprap, catchment basins and landslide drains

->These are paid for by taxpayers who don’t necessarily live in the affected areas

Societal Attitudes

• Who should be responsible?– Seller, purchaser, developer, or government– Caveat emptor: ‘buyer beware’– Seller often held responsible if aware– Government held responsible because deeper pockets

than others– Federal Government bails out poor decisions by local

government

Societal Attitudes

• People are suspicious of Federal Government until a disaster strikes

• Tax cuts limit funding for infrastructure maintenance and disaster relief

• Federal policy has shifted to mitigation, with funds for rebuilding only in safer location or in safer way

Education

• Billions of tax dollars are spent to protect inherently high-risk areas for benefit of few

After a Disaster• Property rights advocates maintain that landowners

should be permitted to do whatever they wish with their property

• Insurance companies have begun to refuse to renew policies or dramatically increase policies in dangerous areas

• People living in known hazardous areas should be required to purchase insurance or be ineligible for public relief

Education

• Solution should be to educate public about natural hazards and processes

• People often do not want to be educated about natural hazards – window of opportunity is within a year or so of major natural catastrophe

Different Ground Rules for the Poor

• How do you evacuate if you don’t own a car?• Should public housing be only in low-lying

areas?• Do the poor deserve to be more at-risk?

Global Warming Evidence

Global Warming Evidence

Is Global Warming Real?

• 20 years of data:

Is Global Warming Real?

• 130 years of data:

Global Warming Impacts

• Millions will die by increased incidence of: – storms and coastal flooding– heat stroke– dehydration– famine – disease– wars over water, food, heating fuel and other

resources

Global Warming Impacts

• Global warming will lead to • more rapid erosion of coastlines, • more extremes in weather • more landslides, floods, hurricanes and wildfires

Relationship between Global Warming and Fires

Worse Problems to Come?

• Increase in hurricane activity is attributed to increase in sea surface temperature

• Poorer countries sustain much greater disaster losses relative to their total economic viability – more likely to remain mired in poverty

• Population pressure will increase losses from natural disasters

“War on Terror”

What leads to more deaths:

Terrorism or Natural Disasters?

“War on Terror”

• Since 2001: (NRC Handelsblad)• “The list counts 7,085 dead and 10,132 wounded –

numbers that need to be made widely known.”• 2004 Earthquake killed 229,000 people• Fig. 18-7: Annual U.S. deaths from hazards

500

So in the last 8 years: 4000

If you had $1 Trillion…

• Move people out of low areas of New Orleans

• Refurbish houses in earthquake-prone areas

• Relocate houses prone to liquefaction

• Fire-proof houses in the forest

• Volcanic hazards?

• Flood plain relocations

• Hurricane evacuation plans

• Levee improvements

Balance mitigation vs. planning vs. recovery

Personal choices

• Where do you plan to live?• Where is your house relative to natural hazards?• Will you drive or bike or use public transportation?• Will you be prepared for disasters, or wait for FEMA to

bail you out?

Mt. Rainier

El Salvador volcano-dormant for 1700 years

The San Francisco Bay Area