Pub Date : 2021-11-29DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.440
M. Borowska-Stefańska, S. Wiśniewski
This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. Please check back later for the full article. Globally, floods cause widespread damage, especially in densely populated areas exposed to heavy land use. As a result, enormous financial expenditure is invested in flood protection and the mitigation of flood-related effects. Decisions on the allocation of resources to ensure flood protection are made on the determination of the costs entailed and the expected benefits that such actions may bring. From the economic point of view, the outlays incurred for flood protection should be outweighed by the expected results. For this reason, flood risk management is very important. Mitigation of flood-related loss should take into account a comprehensive spectrum of actions, from prevention and education, through measures taken during a flood, to strategies that help people return to normality once the disaster is over. In the 21st century there has been a radical change in the approach to the issue of flood protection (as seen in the 2007 Floods Directive)—it is no longer believed that there is such a thing as complete protection against flood, but that the damage and loss floods inflict can be mitigated, and since floods cannot be completely eradicated, societies must learn how to live with them. In the event of a flood, pre-prepared procedures to counteract and mitigate the effects of the disaster are followed, including evacuation of people and movable property from affected areas. Evacuation planning is meant to reduce the number of disaster-related fatalities and material losses. Crucially, this type of planning requires a well-defined, optimum evacuation policy for people/households within flood hazard areas. In addition, evacuation modeling is particularly important for authorities, planners, and other experts managing the process of evacuation, as it allows for more effective relocation of evacuees. Modeling can also facilitate the identification of bottlenecks within the transport system prior to the occurrence of a disaster, that is, the impact of flood-related road closures and the effects a phased evacuation has on traffic load, among other things, can be determined. Furthermore, not only may the ability to model alternative evacuation scenarios lead to the establishment of appropriate policies, evacuation strategies, and contingency plans, but it might also facilitate better communication and information flow.
{"title":"Flood Risk Management: Analysis of Evacuation Process","authors":"M. Borowska-Stefańska, S. Wiśniewski","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.440","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.440","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. Please check back later for the full article.\u0000 \u0000 Globally, floods cause widespread damage, especially in densely populated areas exposed to heavy land use. As a result, enormous financial expenditure is invested in flood protection and the mitigation of flood-related effects. Decisions on the allocation of resources to ensure flood protection are made on the determination of the costs entailed and the expected benefits that such actions may bring. From the economic point of view, the outlays incurred for flood protection should be outweighed by the expected results. For this reason, flood risk management is very important. Mitigation of flood-related loss should take into account a comprehensive spectrum of actions, from prevention and education, through measures taken during a flood, to strategies that help people return to normality once the disaster is over. In the 21st century there has been a radical change in the approach to the issue of flood protection (as seen in the 2007 Floods Directive)—it is no longer believed that there is such a thing as complete protection against flood, but that the damage and loss floods inflict can be mitigated, and since floods cannot be completely eradicated, societies must learn how to live with them. In the event of a flood, pre-prepared procedures to counteract and mitigate the effects of the disaster are followed, including evacuation of people and movable property from affected areas. Evacuation planning is meant to reduce the number of disaster-related fatalities and material losses. Crucially, this type of planning requires a well-defined, optimum evacuation policy for people/households within flood hazard areas. In addition, evacuation modeling is particularly important for authorities, planners, and other experts managing the process of evacuation, as it allows for more effective relocation of evacuees. Modeling can also facilitate the identification of bottlenecks within the transport system prior to the occurrence of a disaster, that is, the impact of flood-related road closures and the effects a phased evacuation has on traffic load, among other things, can be determined. Furthermore, not only may the ability to model alternative evacuation scenarios lead to the establishment of appropriate policies, evacuation strategies, and contingency plans, but it might also facilitate better communication and information flow.","PeriodicalId":300110,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science","volume":"139 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134500193","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-29DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.381
L. Dominelli
The concepts of hazards and risks began in engineering when scientists were measuring the points at which materials would become sufficiently stressed by the pressures upon them that they would break. These concepts migrated into the environmental sciences to assess risk in the natural terrain, including the risks that human activities posed to the survival of animals (including fish in streams) and plants in the biosphere. From there, they moved to the social sciences, primarily in formal disaster discourses. With the realization that modern societies constantly faced risks cushioned in uncertainties within everyday life, the media popularized the concept of risk and its accoutrements, including mitigation, adaptation, and preventative measures, among the general populace. A crucial manifestation of this is the media’s accounts of the risks affecting different groups of people or places contracting Covid-19, which burst upon a somnambulant world in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared Covid-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020. Politicians of diverse hues sought to reassure nervous inhabitants that they had followed robust, scientific advice on risks to facilitate “flattening the curve” by spreading the rate of infection in different communities over a longer period to reduce demand for public health services. Definitions of hazard, risk, vulnerability, and resilience evolved as they moved from the physical sciences into everyday life to reassure edgy populations that their social systems, especially the medical ones, could cope with the demands of disasters. While most countries have managed the risk Covid-19 posed to health services, this has been at a price that people found difficult to accept. Instead, as they reflected upon their experiences of being confronted with the deaths of many loved ones, especially among elders in care homes; adversities foisted upon the disease’s outcomes by existing social inequalities; and loss of associative freedoms, many questioned whether official mitigation strategies were commensurate with apparent risks. The public demanded an end to such inequities and questioned the bases on which politicians made their decisions. They also began to search for certainties in the social responses to risk in the hopes of building better futures as other institutions, schools, and businesses went into lockdown, and social relationships and people’s usual interactions with others ceased. For some, it seemed as if society were crumbling around them, and they wanted a better version of their world to replace the one devastated by Covid-19 (or other disasters). Key to this better version was a safer, fairer, more equitable and reliable future. Responses to the risks within Covid-19 scenarios are similar to responses to other disasters, including earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, tsunamis, storms, extreme weather events, and climate change. The claims of “building back better” are
{"title":"Hazards, Social Resilience, and Safer Futures","authors":"L. Dominelli","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.381","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.381","url":null,"abstract":"The concepts of hazards and risks began in engineering when scientists were measuring the points at which materials would become sufficiently stressed by the pressures upon them that they would break. These concepts migrated into the environmental sciences to assess risk in the natural terrain, including the risks that human activities posed to the survival of animals (including fish in streams) and plants in the biosphere. From there, they moved to the social sciences, primarily in formal disaster discourses. With the realization that modern societies constantly faced risks cushioned in uncertainties within everyday life, the media popularized the concept of risk and its accoutrements, including mitigation, adaptation, and preventative measures, among the general populace. A crucial manifestation of this is the media’s accounts of the risks affecting different groups of people or places contracting Covid-19, which burst upon a somnambulant world in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared Covid-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020. Politicians of diverse hues sought to reassure nervous inhabitants that they had followed robust, scientific advice on risks to facilitate “flattening the curve” by spreading the rate of infection in different communities over a longer period to reduce demand for public health services.\u0000 Definitions of hazard, risk, vulnerability, and resilience evolved as they moved from the physical sciences into everyday life to reassure edgy populations that their social systems, especially the medical ones, could cope with the demands of disasters. While most countries have managed the risk Covid-19 posed to health services, this has been at a price that people found difficult to accept. Instead, as they reflected upon their experiences of being confronted with the deaths of many loved ones, especially among elders in care homes; adversities foisted upon the disease’s outcomes by existing social inequalities; and loss of associative freedoms, many questioned whether official mitigation strategies were commensurate with apparent risks.\u0000 The public demanded an end to such inequities and questioned the bases on which politicians made their decisions. They also began to search for certainties in the social responses to risk in the hopes of building better futures as other institutions, schools, and businesses went into lockdown, and social relationships and people’s usual interactions with others ceased. For some, it seemed as if society were crumbling around them, and they wanted a better version of their world to replace the one devastated by Covid-19 (or other disasters). Key to this better version was a safer, fairer, more equitable and reliable future. Responses to the risks within Covid-19 scenarios are similar to responses to other disasters, including earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, tsunamis, storms, extreme weather events, and climate change. The claims of “building back better” are ","PeriodicalId":300110,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130225080","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-31DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.136
I. Pal
Catastrophic natural disasters have served as reminders of the connection between fragile governments and human losses. Developing economies are impacted most from natural as well as anthropogenic hazards. For example, the Indian Ocean tsunami (2004) claimed 227,898 lives, primarily in three politically fragmented countries with developing economies: Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and India; and the 2010 Haiti earthquake affected more than 3 million people and killed between 46,190 and 316,000. According to EM-DAT, the cumulative number of global disaster deaths over the past 30 years was 1,677,000, with an annual average of 54,082 deaths. According to Swiss reinsurance companies, the average global natural disaster insurance loss for the last 10 years (2009–2018) was $67 billion, and global insurance losses accounted for 0.09% of global GDP on average. Over the past decade, “natural” disasters have caused more than 780,000 fatalities and destroyed physical properties worth a minimum of $960 billion. The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) initiated the international disaster governance agenda for the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) global blueprint in 2005 and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) in 2015. Since the HFA, the international disaster risk reduction (DRR) community is increasingly viewing disaster risk management (DRM) as a governance concern. Governments are not a single structure; they are divided into various functions, hierarchies, policies, and responsibilities in working to create resilient communities at various levels (national and subnational). In countries with developing economies, government agencies have a significant role in DRM, which includes community-based organizations, science and technology research institutes, environmental protection agencies, and finance ministries. The existence of disaster management systems able to integrate vertical and horizontal coordination efforts is a critical weakness. Although there has been significant improvement globally in government capacities as well as institutional frameworks and legislative provisions for DRR in recent years, progress has been uneven. National-level policy formulation in a top-down model has often not made a significant impact at lower levels of government, where awareness-raising, training, and capacity-building likely would be significantly addressed. An extensive literature review is provided to help understand decentralized governance and its efficacy for local-level risk management of natural hazards for developing economies. Community risk perceptions and ways to respond to disasters vary from location to location; thus, it is important to implement decentralized policies and customize them to local needs and priorities to achieve low-impact sustainable development.
{"title":"Natural Hazards Governance in Democratic States With Developing Economies","authors":"I. Pal","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.136","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.136","url":null,"abstract":"Catastrophic natural disasters have served as reminders of the connection between fragile governments and human losses. Developing economies are impacted most from natural as well as anthropogenic hazards. For example, the Indian Ocean tsunami (2004) claimed 227,898 lives, primarily in three politically fragmented countries with developing economies: Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and India; and the 2010 Haiti earthquake affected more than 3 million people and killed between 46,190 and 316,000. According to EM-DAT, the cumulative number of global disaster deaths over the past 30 years was 1,677,000, with an annual average of 54,082 deaths. According to Swiss reinsurance companies, the average global natural disaster insurance loss for the last 10 years (2009–2018) was $67 billion, and global insurance losses accounted for 0.09% of global GDP on average. Over the past decade, “natural” disasters have caused more than 780,000 fatalities and destroyed physical properties worth a minimum of $960 billion.\u0000 The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) initiated the international disaster governance agenda for the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) global blueprint in 2005 and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) in 2015. Since the HFA, the international disaster risk reduction (DRR) community is increasingly viewing disaster risk management (DRM) as a governance concern.\u0000 Governments are not a single structure; they are divided into various functions, hierarchies, policies, and responsibilities in working to create resilient communities at various levels (national and subnational). In countries with developing economies, government agencies have a significant role in DRM, which includes community-based organizations, science and technology research institutes, environmental protection agencies, and finance ministries. The existence of disaster management systems able to integrate vertical and horizontal coordination efforts is a critical weakness. Although there has been significant improvement globally in government capacities as well as institutional frameworks and legislative provisions for DRR in recent years, progress has been uneven. National-level policy\u0000 formulation in a top-down model has often not made a significant impact at lower levels of government, where awareness-raising, training, and capacity-building likely would be significantly addressed. An extensive literature review is provided to help understand decentralized governance and its efficacy for local-level risk management of natural hazards for developing economies. Community risk perceptions and ways to respond to disasters vary from location to location; thus, it is important to implement decentralized policies and customize them to local needs and priorities to achieve low-impact sustainable development.","PeriodicalId":300110,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122062961","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-31DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.415
M. Kibria, M. Abedin
This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. Please check back later for the full article. Water scarcity is a significant global concern affecting every continent. Safe water crises mainly occur due to climate change, increasing global population, and urbanization. Safe water crises are more distressing in climate hot spots such as coastal areas, areas with low rainfall, and urban areas. Bangladesh, a developing country, is experiencing the problem of water crisis in both coastal and urban areas. Safe water adaptability can be an integrative approach to mitigate water scarcity in these areas. Adaptability measures include surface and groundwater resources monitoring, use of natural and artificial water storage, and providing technical training in safe water management to local community members. These measures can help to combat the safe water crisis across the globe. Safe water adaptability measures can be classified into four different dimensions known as SIPE (i.e., socioeconomic, institutional, physiochemical, and environmental) based on both primary and secondary indicators. The SIPE approach measures the adaptability index by scoring the primary and secondary indicators and categorizes them as low to high in the adaptive community. This new approach will offer information and guidelines for the government, policymakers, and researchers to combat the water scarcity problem. Although the proposed approach is applicable in the context of Bangladesh, this strategy can also be used in any part of the globe by customizing the secondary indicators and considering the type of local problem in order to provide safe water for people in the community. Initiated at a micro level, the SIPE approach can become an integral part of national policies related to access to safe water, especially for drinking and irrigation purposes.
{"title":"Safe Water Adaptability: An Approach to Combat Water Scarcity","authors":"M. Kibria, M. Abedin","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.415","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.415","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. Please check back later for the full article.\u0000 \u0000 Water scarcity is a significant global concern affecting every continent. Safe water crises mainly occur due to climate change, increasing global population, and urbanization. Safe water crises are more distressing in climate hot spots such as coastal areas, areas with low rainfall, and urban areas. Bangladesh, a developing country, is experiencing the problem of water crisis in both coastal and urban areas. Safe water adaptability can be an integrative approach to mitigate water scarcity in these areas. Adaptability measures include surface and groundwater resources monitoring, use of natural and artificial water storage, and providing technical training in safe water management to local community members. These measures can help to combat the safe water crisis across the globe. Safe water adaptability measures can be classified into four different dimensions known as SIPE (i.e., socioeconomic, institutional, physiochemical, and environmental) based on both primary and secondary indicators. The SIPE approach measures the adaptability index by scoring the primary and secondary indicators and categorizes them as low to high in the adaptive community. This new approach will offer information and guidelines for the government, policymakers, and researchers to combat the water scarcity problem. Although the proposed approach is applicable in the context of Bangladesh, this strategy can also be used in any part of the globe by customizing the secondary indicators and considering the type of local problem in order to provide safe water for people in the community. Initiated at a micro level, the SIPE approach can become an integral part of national policies related to access to safe water, especially for drinking and irrigation purposes.","PeriodicalId":300110,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129607002","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-31DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.343
Mohammed Alkhurayyif, J. Winkler, Simon A. Andrew, Skip Krueger
An important challenge of natural hazards is that they inflict the greatest total economic damage in large, developed countries, where wealth is aggregated, but they create the greatest economic impact in smaller and developing countries, where a disaster caused by a natural hazard can easily overwhelm a national government’s ability to respond and its economy to recover. Thus, a common understanding in the literature is that the fiscal effect of a natural hazard is a function of the size of the disaster relative to the size of a nation’s economy at the time of the disaster. At the international level, the economic impact of disasters, for example, has been estimated to be US$2.9 trillion between 1998 and 2017, and approximately $945 billion of that occurred in the United States. With a 2019 gross domestic product (GDP) of $21 trillion, the total economic effect for those 20 years is close to 5% of the value of economic output for a single year. Developing country losses, on the other hand, can be overwhelming, especially as measured against the size of the economy. For example, Hurricane Maria’s impact on Dominica is estimated to have been approximately US$1.37 billion, which was equivalent to 225% of Dominica’s GDP. While an appreciation for the connection between the size of a national economy and natural hazards is clearly critical, the literature points to a number of additional factors that are important to understand about how government financial conditions are affected by natural hazards and vice versa. Debates continue about the role of foreign direct investment, government and private debt levels, investments in education, and internationally sponsored protective actions and insurance pools in improving the resilience of smaller and developing countries to disasters. For example, structural approaches to understanding the linkage between disasters and economic development suggest that countries with a limited number of sources of income have economies that are more vulnerable to disasters than more diversified economies, which might suggest that fiscal policies designed to increase economic diversity are important. Neoclassical approaches, on the other hand, argue that economic recovery is slowed by government intervention in the economy, and suggest that the best way for developing economies to recovery quickly is to reduce the amount of regulation in the economy. Whatever the theoretical approach, what remains most clear is the ongoing challenge of decoupling the emotional need to participate in responses to the human tragedy associated with disasters caused by natural hazards from the strategic imperative to invest in hazard mitigation at much higher rates globally and plan toward disaster risk reduction.
{"title":"Comparative Public Finance Approaches to Natural Hazards Management","authors":"Mohammed Alkhurayyif, J. Winkler, Simon A. Andrew, Skip Krueger","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.343","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.343","url":null,"abstract":"An important challenge of natural hazards is that they inflict the greatest total economic damage in large, developed countries, where wealth is aggregated, but they create the greatest economic impact in smaller and developing countries, where a disaster caused by a natural hazard can easily overwhelm a national government’s ability to respond and its economy to recover. Thus, a common understanding in the literature is that the fiscal effect of a natural hazard is a function of the size of the disaster relative to the size of a nation’s economy at the time of the disaster.\u0000 At the international level, the economic impact of disasters, for example, has been estimated to be US$2.9 trillion between 1998 and 2017, and approximately $945 billion of that occurred in the United States. With a 2019 gross domestic product (GDP) of $21 trillion, the total economic effect for those 20 years is close to 5% of the value of economic output for a single year. Developing country losses, on the other hand, can be overwhelming, especially as measured against the size of the economy. For example, Hurricane Maria’s impact on Dominica is estimated to have been approximately US$1.37 billion, which was equivalent to 225% of Dominica’s GDP.\u0000 While an appreciation for the connection between the size of a national economy and natural hazards is clearly critical, the literature points to a number of additional factors that are important to understand about how government financial conditions are affected by natural hazards and vice versa. Debates continue about the role of foreign direct investment, government and private debt levels, investments in education, and internationally sponsored protective actions and insurance pools in improving the resilience of smaller and developing countries to disasters. For example, structural approaches to understanding the linkage between disasters and economic development suggest that countries with a limited number of sources of income have economies that are more vulnerable to disasters than more diversified economies, which might suggest that fiscal policies designed to increase economic diversity are important. Neoclassical approaches, on the other hand, argue that economic recovery is slowed by government intervention in the economy, and suggest that the best way for developing economies to recovery quickly is to reduce the amount of regulation in the economy.\u0000 Whatever the theoretical approach, what remains most clear is the ongoing challenge of decoupling the emotional need to participate in responses to the human tragedy associated with disasters caused by natural hazards from the strategic imperative to invest in hazard mitigation at much higher rates globally and plan toward disaster risk reduction.","PeriodicalId":300110,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131693028","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-31DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.364
Vicente Sandoval, B. Wisner, Martin Voss
The governance of natural hazards in Chile involves how different actors participate in all stages of managing natural hazards and their impacts. This includes monitoring and early warning systems and response to the most significant hazardous events in the country: earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, hydrological and meteorological events, and wildfires. Other general processes, such as disaster recovery, disaster risk reduction (DRR), and political economy and socioenvironmental processes of disaster risk creation are fundamental to understanding the complexity of natural hazard governance. Chile has a long history of disasters linked to its geographical and climatological diversity as well as its history and development path. The country has made significant advances toward an effective disaster risk management (DRM) system, which is backed up by sophisticated monitoring systems for earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, hydro- and meteorological events, and wildfires. These technical advances are integrated with disaster response mechanisms that include trained personnel, regulatory frameworks, institutions, and other actors, all under the direction of the National Emergency Office. The Chilean mode of DRM and DRR is characterized by a centralized, top-down approach that limits the opportunities for community organizations to participate in discussions of DRR and decision-making. It also centralizes planning of post-disaster processes such as reconstruction. Likewise, the dominant politico-economic model of Chile is neoliberalism. This development path has reproduced the root causes of disaster vulnerability through socioeconomic inequalities as well as poorly regulated urbanization and the practices of extractive industries. This has created numerous socioenvironmental conflicts throughout the Chilean territory with sometimes hazardous effects on local communities, especially indigenous groups. The governance of hazards and risk reduction in Chile still has a long way to go to secure the country’s path to sustainable human development.
{"title":"Natural Hazards Governance in Chile","authors":"Vicente Sandoval, B. Wisner, Martin Voss","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.364","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.364","url":null,"abstract":"The governance of natural hazards in Chile involves how different actors participate in all stages of managing natural hazards and their impacts. This includes monitoring and early warning systems and response to the most significant hazardous events in the country: earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, hydrological and meteorological events, and wildfires. Other general processes, such as disaster recovery, disaster risk reduction (DRR), and political economy and socioenvironmental processes of disaster risk creation are fundamental to understanding the complexity of natural hazard governance.\u0000 Chile has a long history of disasters linked to its geographical and climatological diversity as well as its history and development path. The country has made significant advances toward an effective disaster risk management (DRM) system, which is backed up by sophisticated monitoring systems for earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, hydro- and meteorological events, and wildfires. These technical advances are integrated with disaster response mechanisms that include trained personnel, regulatory frameworks, institutions, and other actors, all under the direction of the National Emergency Office. The Chilean mode of DRM and DRR is characterized by a centralized, top-down approach that limits the opportunities for community organizations to participate in discussions of DRR and decision-making. It also centralizes planning of post-disaster processes such as reconstruction. Likewise, the dominant politico-economic model of Chile is neoliberalism. This development path has reproduced the root causes of disaster vulnerability through socioeconomic inequalities as well as poorly regulated urbanization and the practices of extractive industries. This has created numerous socioenvironmental conflicts throughout the Chilean territory with sometimes hazardous effects on local communities, especially indigenous groups. The governance of hazards and risk reduction in Chile still has a long way to go to secure the country’s path to sustainable human development.","PeriodicalId":300110,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114583110","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-31DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.416
U. Habiba, M. Abedin
This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. Please check back later for the full article. Bangladesh scored seventh in a ranking of countries most affected by climatic calamities in the second decade of the 21st century. Climate change poses a great threat to Bangladesh’s economy due to its effect on the agricultural system. The agriculture sector employs about 40.6% of the country’s labor force and contributes 14.1% of the gross domestic product (GDP). Various climatic factors such as changes in precipitation, temperature, sea level rise, salinity intrusion, drought, and natural disasters (storm surges, cyclones, etc.) impact the agriculture sector. These factors ultimately affect crop production and increase food insecurity. The coastal zone frequently suffers the impacts of climate change through coastal flooding, cyclones, storm surges, drought, salinity intrusion, water-logging, and so forth. These crises not only affect agricultural productivity but also lead to degradation of soil productivity and lower agricultural production/yield. To cope with the impacts on coastal agriculture, government, nongovernmental organizations, and communities have practiced a number of adaptation measures. They have adopted several measures such as using stress-tolerant rice varieties; crops that consume less water; short-duration crops; crop diversification; crop rotation; mix cropping/intercropping; efficient use of irrigation, fertilizer, and pesticides; soil conservation; floating gardens; sorjan cultivation; homestead vegetable gardening; and the re-excavation of canals. However, these adaptive practices are responsive and timely immediately after the occurrence of the effects of climate change. Taking this into consideration, it is imperative to scale up these adaptation measures and to synchronize efforts at various levels for their successful implementation by coastal communities in order to cope with climate change in a sustainable manner.
{"title":"Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture Adaptation in Coastal Zones of Bangladesh","authors":"U. Habiba, M. Abedin","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.416","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.416","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. Please check back later for the full article.\u0000 \u0000 Bangladesh scored seventh in a ranking of countries most affected by climatic calamities in the second decade of the 21st century. Climate change poses a great threat to Bangladesh’s economy due to its effect on the agricultural system. The agriculture sector employs about 40.6% of the country’s labor force and contributes 14.1% of the gross domestic product (GDP). Various climatic factors such as changes in precipitation, temperature, sea level rise, salinity intrusion, drought, and natural disasters (storm surges, cyclones, etc.) impact the agriculture sector. These factors ultimately affect crop production and increase food insecurity. The coastal zone frequently suffers the impacts of climate change through coastal flooding, cyclones, storm surges, drought, salinity intrusion, water-logging, and so forth. These crises not only affect agricultural productivity but also lead to degradation of soil productivity and lower agricultural production/yield. To cope with the impacts on coastal agriculture, government, nongovernmental organizations, and communities have practiced a number of adaptation measures. They have adopted several measures such as using stress-tolerant rice varieties; crops that consume less water; short-duration crops; crop diversification; crop rotation; mix cropping/intercropping; efficient use of irrigation, fertilizer, and pesticides; soil conservation; floating gardens; sorjan cultivation; homestead vegetable gardening; and the re-excavation of canals. However, these adaptive practices are responsive and timely immediately after the occurrence of the effects of climate change. Taking this into consideration, it is imperative to scale up these adaptation measures and to synchronize efforts at various levels for their successful implementation by coastal communities in order to cope with climate change in a sustainable manner.","PeriodicalId":300110,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science","volume":"201202 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123355170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-19DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.356
S. Allen, H. Frey, W. Haeberli, C. Huggel, M. Chiarle, M. Geertsema
This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. Please check back later for the full article. Glacier and permafrost hazards encompass various flood and mass movement processes that are directly conditioned or triggered by contemporary changes in the alpine cryosphere, threatening lives and livelihoods in most mountain regions of the world. These processes are characterized by a range of spatial and temporal dimensions, from small-volume icefalls and rockfalls that present a frequent but localized danger, to less frequent but larger-magnitude avalanches of ice and/or rock and related process chains that can travel large distances and thereby threaten people and infrastructure located far downstream. Glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs) have proven particularly devastating, accounting for the most far-reaching disasters in high mountain regions globally. GAPHAZ, the Standing Group on Glacier and Permafrost Hazards of the International Association of Cryospheric Sciences (IACS), and the International Permafrost Association (IPA) recently published a technical guidance document on the assessment of glacier and permafrost hazards in mountain regions, drawing on internationally accepted best practices of integrated hazard assessment, reflecting the scientific state of the art. Here, the main aspects of this guidance document are summarized and reflected in the context of the historic development, current state, and future challenges related to the assessment of glacier- and permafrost-related hazard assessments. In a comprehensive assessment of glacier and permafrost hazards, two core components (or outcomes) are typically included: 1. Susceptibility and stability assessment: Identifying where from, and how likely an event could be, based on analyses of wide-ranging triggering and conditioning factors driven by interlinking atmospheric, cryospheric, geological, geomorphological, and hydrological processes. 2. Hazard mapping: Identifying the potential impact on downslope and downstream areas through a combination of process modeling and field mapping, providing the scientific basis for decision-making and planning. Glacier and permafrost hazards gained prominence around the mid-20th century, especially following a series of major disasters in the Peruvian Andes (Huaraz, 1941, and the Huascarán events of 1962 and 1970), Alaska (Lituya Bay, 1958), and the Swiss Alps (Mattmark, 1965). At the time of these events, related hazard assessments were reactionary and event-focused, aiming to understand the causes of the disasters and assess the ongoing threat to communities. These disasters, and others that followed (e.g., Kolka–Karmadon, 2002), established the fundamental need to consider complex geosystems and cascading processes with their cumulative downstream impacts as one of the distinguishing principles of integrative glacier and permafrost hazard assessment. Nowadays, the wide
{"title":"Assessment Principles for Glacier and Permafrost Hazards in Mountain Regions","authors":"S. Allen, H. Frey, W. Haeberli, C. Huggel, M. Chiarle, M. Geertsema","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.356","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.356","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. Please check back later for the full article.\u0000 \u0000 Glacier and permafrost hazards encompass various flood and mass movement processes that are directly conditioned or triggered by contemporary changes in the alpine cryosphere, threatening lives and livelihoods in most mountain regions of the world. These processes are characterized by a range of spatial and temporal dimensions, from small-volume icefalls and rockfalls that present a frequent but localized danger, to less frequent but larger-magnitude avalanches of ice and/or rock and related process chains that can travel large distances and thereby threaten people and infrastructure located far downstream. Glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs) have proven particularly devastating, accounting for the most far-reaching disasters in high mountain regions globally.\u0000 GAPHAZ, the Standing Group on Glacier and Permafrost Hazards of the International Association of Cryospheric Sciences (IACS), and the International Permafrost Association (IPA) recently published a technical guidance document on the assessment of glacier and permafrost hazards in mountain regions, drawing on internationally accepted best practices of integrated hazard assessment, reflecting the scientific state of the art. Here, the main aspects of this guidance document are summarized and reflected in the context of the historic development, current state, and future challenges related to the assessment of glacier- and permafrost-related hazard assessments.\u0000 In a comprehensive assessment of glacier and permafrost hazards, two core components (or outcomes) are typically included:\u0000 1. Susceptibility and stability assessment: Identifying where from, and how likely an event could be, based on analyses of wide-ranging triggering and conditioning factors driven by interlinking atmospheric, cryospheric, geological, geomorphological, and hydrological processes.\u0000 2. Hazard mapping: Identifying the potential impact on downslope and downstream areas through a combination of process modeling and field mapping, providing the scientific basis for decision-making and planning.\u0000 Glacier and permafrost hazards gained prominence around the mid-20th century, especially following a series of major disasters in the Peruvian Andes (Huaraz, 1941, and the Huascarán events of 1962 and 1970), Alaska (Lituya Bay, 1958), and the Swiss Alps (Mattmark, 1965). At the time of these events, related hazard assessments were reactionary and event-focused, aiming to understand the causes of the disasters and assess the ongoing threat to communities. These disasters, and others that followed (e.g., Kolka–Karmadon, 2002), established the fundamental need to consider complex geosystems and cascading processes with their cumulative downstream impacts as one of the distinguishing principles of integrative glacier and permafrost hazard assessment.\u0000 Nowadays, the wide","PeriodicalId":300110,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129995925","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-22DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.347
Ricardo Martén, T. Abrassart, C. Boano
The establishment of effective linkages between institutional urban planning and disaster risk strategies remains a challenge for formal governance structures. For governments at all administrative scales, disaster resilience planning has required systemic capacities that rely on structures of governance, humanitarian frameworks, and budgetary capacities. However, with growing urbanization trends, humanitarian responses and Disaster Risk Management (DRM) frameworks have had to adapt their operations in contexts with high population density, complex infrastructure systems, informal dynamics, and a broader range of actors. Urban areas concentrate an array of different groups with the capability of contributing to urban responses and strategies to cope with disaster effects, including community groups, government agencies, international organizations and humanitarian practitioners. In addition, cities have running planning structures that support their administration and spatial organization, with instruments that supply constant information about population characteristics, infrastructure capacity and potential weaknesses. Processes and data ascribed to urban planning can provide vital knowledge to natural hazard governance frameworks, from technical resources to conceptual approaches towards spatial analysis. Authorities managing risk could improve their strategic objectives if they could access and integrate urban planning information. Furthermore, a collaborative hazard governance can provide equity to multiple urban actors that are usually left out of institutional DRM, including nongovernmental organizations, academia, and community groups. Traditional top-down models can operate in parallel with horizontal arrangements, giving voice to groups with limited access to political platforms but who are knowledgeable on urban space and social codes. Their still limited recognition is evidence that there is still a disconnect between the intentions of global frameworks for inclusive governance, and the co-production of an urban planning designed for inclusive resilience.
{"title":"Urban Planning and Natural Hazard Governance","authors":"Ricardo Martén, T. Abrassart, C. Boano","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.347","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.347","url":null,"abstract":"The establishment of effective linkages between institutional urban planning and disaster risk strategies remains a challenge for formal governance structures. For governments at all administrative scales, disaster resilience planning has required systemic capacities that rely on structures of governance, humanitarian frameworks, and budgetary capacities. However, with growing urbanization trends, humanitarian responses and Disaster Risk Management (DRM) frameworks have had to adapt their operations in contexts with high population density, complex infrastructure systems, informal dynamics, and a broader range of actors. Urban areas concentrate an array of different groups with the capability of contributing to urban responses and strategies to cope with disaster effects, including community groups, government agencies, international organizations and humanitarian practitioners. In addition, cities have running planning structures that support their administration and spatial organization, with instruments that supply constant information about population characteristics, infrastructure capacity and potential weaknesses. Processes and data ascribed to urban planning can provide vital knowledge to natural hazard governance frameworks, from technical resources to conceptual approaches towards spatial analysis. Authorities managing risk could improve their strategic objectives if they could access and integrate urban planning information. Furthermore, a collaborative hazard governance can provide equity to multiple urban actors that are usually left out of institutional DRM, including nongovernmental organizations, academia, and community groups. Traditional top-down models can operate in parallel with horizontal arrangements, giving voice to groups with limited access to political platforms but who are knowledgeable on urban space and social codes. Their still limited recognition is evidence that there is still a disconnect between the intentions of global frameworks for inclusive governance, and the co-production of an urban planning designed for inclusive resilience.","PeriodicalId":300110,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121488984","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-30DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.195
Thomas A. Husted, David Nickerson
Natural disasters pose a significant and rapidly growing burden to society, causing over a million deaths and worldwide economic losses in the trillions of dollars in the last twenty years. Concerned over the extent to which their populations are exposed to disaster risk, policymakers in disaster-prone countries strive to increase the penetration of disaster insurance from its relatively low current level and wish to arrest the increasing share of public liability for private losses arising from rising public expenditures on disaster recovery. Although evidence regarding disaster risk and insurance suggests that individuals respond to their economic incentives when deciding on the degree to which to expose their property and other to risk from a recurrent disaster, potential inefficiencies in private insurance markets can distort these individual incentives and result in underinsurance and excessive exposure. Current research into whether such apparent market inefficiencies are primarily attributed to the behavior of private market participants or to the adverse incentives arising from current programs of disaster aid, regulation and other public policies is of fundamental importance to attaining these policy objectives. This article critically assesses the current state of mainstream economic and political research into disasters, public policy, and household behavior toward disaster risk. Findings of the most important and influential empirical and theoretical studies over the last 30 years are described, as well as limits on the robustness and interpretation of these findings arising from the characteristics of economic data on disasters and potential bias in measuring the determinants of disaster insurance coverage. Also discussed are both theoretical and empirical evidence that moral hazard on the part of households, insurance firms, and elected officials results in misallocations of private coverage; and it is demonstrated that, exactly contrary to the objectives of public policy, current programs of disaster aid in the presence of moral hazard create incentives for households to minimize, rather than maximize, market coverage of their exposure to disaster risk. The conclusion presents and proves a proposition, original to this article, that any compensatory public aid program is necessarily a source of economic inefficiency and, conditional on net losses, decreases economic welfare.
{"title":"Disaster Risk, Moral Hazard, and Public Policy","authors":"Thomas A. Husted, David Nickerson","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.195","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.195","url":null,"abstract":"Natural disasters pose a significant and rapidly growing burden to society, causing over a million deaths and worldwide economic losses in the trillions of dollars in the last twenty years. Concerned over the extent to which their populations are exposed to disaster risk, policymakers in disaster-prone countries strive to increase the penetration of disaster insurance from its relatively low current level and wish to arrest the increasing share of public liability for private losses arising from rising public expenditures on disaster recovery.\u0000 Although evidence regarding disaster risk and insurance suggests that individuals respond to their economic incentives when deciding on the degree to which to expose their property and other to risk from a recurrent disaster, potential inefficiencies in private insurance markets can distort these individual incentives and result in underinsurance and excessive exposure. Current research into whether such apparent market inefficiencies are primarily attributed to the behavior of private market participants or to the adverse incentives arising from current programs of disaster aid, regulation and other public policies is of fundamental importance to attaining these policy objectives.\u0000 This article critically assesses the current state of mainstream economic and political research into disasters, public policy, and household behavior toward disaster risk. Findings of the most important and influential empirical and theoretical studies over the last 30 years are described, as well as limits on the robustness and interpretation of these findings arising from the characteristics of economic data on disasters and potential bias in measuring the determinants of disaster insurance coverage. Also discussed are both theoretical and empirical evidence that moral hazard on the part of households, insurance firms, and elected officials results in misallocations of private coverage; and it is demonstrated that, exactly contrary to the objectives of public policy, current programs of disaster aid in the presence of moral hazard create incentives for households to minimize, rather than maximize, market coverage of their exposure to disaster risk. The conclusion presents and proves a proposition, original to this article, that any compensatory public aid program is necessarily a source of economic inefficiency and, conditional on net losses, decreases economic welfare.","PeriodicalId":300110,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116049690","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：