8/2/2019 The Impacts of Natural Disasters Are Getting Worse

1/3

The impacts of natural disasters are getting worse Describe and explain for and against this statement referring to a range of

hazard types and case studies.Kathryn Farr

Natural disasters are defined as the effects of a hazard, which lead to financial,environmental, or human loss. Impacts are defined as meaning the after effects of an event,hazard or disaster when occurring. Impacts can come in a number of ways in which canaffect the people involved these are through: deaths, property damage, economic damageand injuries. To avoid severe impacts there are the 3 Ps, these are prevention, protectionand prediction. All of which are used through satellite screenings, education of the hazards,etc. Finally another key definition is hazard hotspots meaning somewhere where a hazard is

always prone to occurring and is a natural occurrence.

The question mentions the fact that impacts are getting worse which therefore involve s atime element. This can be measured through the frequency of the disaster meaning howoften it occurs and the magnitude meaning how much it measures on a scale of some sorte.g. in the case of earthquakes a Richter scale is used. To enforce the measurements withthe help of frequency and magnitude this disaster risk equation measures this.The disaster risk equation shows how effective the disaster was times by the vulnerability of the residents i.e. location, and then the community capacity to cope illustrates the

resources after the impacts take place.Disaster risk equation:

Frequency/magnitude x vulnerabilityCommunity capacity to cope

There are 3 main types of damage that occur these are:Economic damage:Another impact which can damage a country rapidly is the economic damage, as the moredamage done to an area the higher the cost of repair. This normally affects more developedcountries as appose to less developed countries, because they are more highly built-up inrelation to building structure and housing, so the cost of damage is further increasing.Deaths:The number of deaths rated as an impact is a strong reflection of how shocking the disasterwas.Property damage:This interlinks with economic damage, as if a property is damaged it must be restored,

otherwise the levels of the homeless will rise.

8/2/2019 The Impacts of Natural Disasters Are Getting Worse

2/3

Some ideas which support the fact that the impact of disasters are getting worse are:A lot of residents in both MEDCs and LEDCs are building on dangerous areas, this is a resultof urbanisation meaning the social process whereby cities grow and societies become moreurban. This is a reason that impacts can be made worse from natural disasters; as if there is

a lack of safe land to build on, residents will have to build outwards to areas in which arentsafe. This makes them more hazard prone as the land will be further to a core or point of destruction. Also as the Haiti case study below illustrates, the use of protection schemes arenot being enforced meaning there is a higher chance of death and damage, this thereforesupports the question title, that are impacts are worsening.

A case study that supports the idea that the impacts of disasters are getting worse is:The Caribbean nation of Haiti was struck by an earthquake in January 2010. The magnitudegot to a high of 7.0 on the Richter scale, which is considerably catastrophic.

This case study supports the title question as Haiti had a lack of building codes, meaningstability of the buildings, so the level of protection would have been lessened greatly. Alsothere was a shortage of governmental attention. The number of people reported dead was220,000. This would show that impacts are worsening as the amount of people who diedwas high, showing the population of Haiti to be very vulnerable to disaster.

Burma located near China-2008This case study is useful to support the title question as it shows a high number of deathswhich is a key outcome of disasters, at 138,000 this is an extremely high statistic. The Burmadisaster was a cyclone, which is defined as a strong windstorm. The problem was themilitaristic government was reluctant to help people, making it inevitable that any disasterwould have high risk impacts, so this shows one of the factors of the 3 ps; prevention, if nocautions are taken to help the possibilities, then nothing can be changed to prevent theforeseeable future. Furthermore as national aid was stopped from entering the country, thismade it impossible for the impacts of the disaster to not be severe, as aid is source of helpfor all kinds of damage to the country and if the damage is not recovered it willprogressively get worse.

Hurricane Katrina- August 2005-USAThis supports the study that impacts are worsening as; the economical impact of this studywas one of the biggest at an estimate of $158 billion; as this is quite a recent disaster thiswould prove the protection schemes to not be working in favour of the government as theeconomic damage was outrageous. The fact the USA is an MEDC would add to the soaringeconomic damage. This could also work against the study title as the number of deaths was1322, which in relevance is a large decrease in comparison to previous years due to aid andmore media coverage, meaning help to the injured can be received within hours, throughinternational governments.

8/2/2019 The Impacts of Natural Disasters Are Getting Worse

3/3

There are a number of factors which can help to lower the impact of a disaster one beingthe invention of better technology e.g. warning systems, satellite screening and educatingthe population on safety during a disaster. The art of prediction is tackled through newtechnology; this is a reason against the impacts of hazards becoming worsened. It states if

there is advanced technology, this can avert an event from causing a lot of damage, if residents have time to evacuate an area or change locations to shelters which are moresecure than their homes. Also protection can be successful by the process of makingbuildings more stable e.g. harder materials; therefore they are more likely to withstand theshocks and aftershocks of a disaster, this is more likely to be available to the population of MEDCs as they are more economically active. Although the impacts can get worse indifferent ways, for example if a disaster occurs in an LEDC, there will be a greater loss of lifeand possibly housing due to the lack of stability, but on the other hand, the economicimpacts will be less severe, as in an LEDC because the quality of life and housing is poorer,

so less is destroyed and therefore less is necessary to be restored. Whereas for an MEDCthe chance of life being destroyed can be made less vulnerable due to protection schemesand defence mechanisms as the government have funding to afford these, but this can posesome implications if a disaster does occur because there is far more destroy increase theeconomic damage of the situation.

Oakland wildfires- California-1991This supports against the title question as it shows impacts are lowering as the death ratefor this disaster was 24 people killed and 150 injured. Due to being located in an MEDC, thefire brigade were on hand rapidly to stop the re-occurrence of forest fires as it possible forthem to re-start once being put out. 400 engine companies, 1500 personnel and 250agencies worked together to put the fire out, showing the use of quick AID can lower theimpacts of a natural disaster. Although the economic cost of this disaster was $1.5 billion,which is considerably high but shows a much improved reduction in comparison toHurricane Katrina, at the rate of $158 billion.

In conclusion, to put it plainly the more people are living in hazardous locations where theymight be exposed to natural disasters. For example: coastal cities, which can be exposed tohurricanes and housing development on flood plains, making them vulnerable to floods.There is an obvious argument; for and against the impacts of disasters. From the research Ihave conducted it would show that clearly there is evidence to show hazards are gettingworse, but this is not necessarily due to lack of preparation, it can be due to a shortage inmedia coverage making it harder for AID to be sent to more remote locations, so theimpacts have more time to develop.