Re-calibrating expectations after seasonally predictable disasters
Is it worth the cost to continue doing what we have always done?
Not all disaster events are equal. Some are unpredictable and without any specific certainty — earthquakes and acts of terrorism for example. However, some are much more predictable and even seasonal. Their arrival each year is as sure as the seasons themselves. The only real question is the magnitude and resulting consequence. In circumstances of seasonally predictable natural disasters, should all resulting damage be wholly attributable to the disaster act itself? When it comes to natural disasters the amount of damage in an area (label this consequence) is directly linked to the pre-existing impact by society upon these areas (label this development).
The seasonal natural disaster is always the constant (not to imply the magnitude is always constant) and the consequence is related to pre-event development. This interrelation between two objects is generally known as proportionality and concludes that the change in one is always accompanied by change in the other. Therefore, consequence (c) is proportional to development (d) and is represented as c ∝ d. So perhaps in conjunction with the all too familiar [threat (x) risk = vulnerability] formula in use today we should also consider using a modified [consequence ∝ development] formula to mitigate the sense of absolution given to communities in these circumstances. Perhaps a percentage of vulnerability is self imposed by development in these areas.
Even if we are talking about seasonal flooding or wild land fires started by lightning strike, man-made impacts through housing developments, flood control measure, dams and forest management practices contribute to the magnitude of resulting damage. Therefore, while the initial act may be unintended and considered an act of God, the total damage should not be 100% attributable to the act itself. Rather, shouldn’t we assign some of the responsibility for the damage (consequence) to ourselves?
Many agree with this concept in principle but positions can become polarized when the discussion turns to rebuilding and redeveloping after such events. This sensitivity is understandable as it invariably leads to debates about the very wisdom of rebuilding communities in certain areas prone to frequent natural disasters. It is individual rights versus the greater good. Should the whole of society take precedence over an individual in these circumstances? Further, these dynamics change significantly when we move the discussion from individuals and small developments to several hundred thousand individuals and large cities, requiring complex responses and massive amounts of resources.
One brief example is the coastal city of Tacloban, Philippines. This city of 220,000 sits on the coast, below sea level. On November 8, 2013 Super Typhoon Haiyan completely destroyed Tacloban. Hundreds died and thousands had to be evacuated. An appropriate and necessary global response came to the aid of Tacloban and the Philippines. Citing Tacloban specifically, many experts questioned the wisdom of rebuilding these coastal towns after such a catastrophic event, many of which have already been destroyed and rebuilt multiple times in the past. According to a November 13 article in the Atlantic, many question the rational for rebuilding http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/11/should-philippines-rebuild-its-typhoon-ravaged-city/7668/. “Many climate change and disaster preparedness experts say that rebuilding the 78-square-mile town of 220,000 [Taclobanos], where hundreds were killed by the storm, is a grave mistake.” Should the Philippine government rebuild these cities and infrastructures along the coast if that is what the citizens want, regardless of the likelihood of future destruction? Is that where the millions in aid money is best spent?
Overall, the U.S. is very good at response and recovery. For those that might initially disagree, simply look at government responses to similarly compared disasters in other countries. We are much better equipped; we have good infrastructures, we possess effective warning systems and offer education and training in response and recovery. This equals better resiliency. However, this may prove to be counterintuitive and the unintended consequence may be an unhealthy interdependent relationship between government and its citizens when it comes to disaster response and recovery.
Before passing judgment on Tacloban, the U.S. is a resilient nation and yet the same response occurs here after hurricanes. We don’t think twice about digging out, cleaning up, rebuilding and reinforcing before next year’s season — whether that be a tornado, wildfire or hurricane — each a seasonally predictable event. But what if we could recalibrate expectations? Would it be beneficial to craft our expectations to be more in line with our choices? Rules and regulations — in the form of building codes and ordinances — do positively affect our resiliency and recovery but they only go so far.
The difficulty is that several of these areas are typically coastal and are therefore, also the hubs for commerce and trade, acting as economic engines for many communities. However, to continue to defy Mother Nature by our efforts to continuously rebuild bigger and better defense mechanisms each and every time may only be setting the table for massive single points of failure resulting in these catastrophic events becoming the norm around the world.
And doing so is also the well known definition of insanity; doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Or worse, maybe we have become accustomed to expecting the same result.
