In 2010, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake resulted in the death of approximately 200,000 people in Haiti. In 1975, a large typhoon caused over 150,000 people to die in the western Henan province in China. In 1923, around 140,000 were killed in another earthquake in Yokohama in Tokyo (Lake, 2022), not to mention the devastating earthquakes that hit Turkey and Syria in 2023, also killing tens of thousands. Each event has been labelled a natural disaster. Yet, there is far from anything at all natural about the colossal death tolls and far-reaching destruction that has ensued in hundreds of instances globally, highlighting the unsuitability of the term. By characterising each disaster as ‘natural’, one may find it far too easy to ignore the fact that in most cases, the frighteningly large death tolls are avoidable, yet incompetent governance and uneducated populations stand in the way of this. In this enquiry, the misleading nature of the term ‘natural disaster’ will be examined, whilst looking at the preparations populations in hazardous areas are able to make, using examples in Japan, Switzerland, the USA, Turkey, and Syria. Why are these natural hazards able to inflict such widespread loss of life in areas that we know are already vulnerable? Why, as a human race, would we not prepare to the highest standards in each instance, in order to maximise the chances of our survival?
The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction defines a disaster as, "a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or society involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources” (UNISDR, 2009). By allowing societies to use the term ‘natural’ to describe certain disasters, one would argue that it is simply a way of excusing the lack of preparation that a country has made. There are always likely to be notable impacts as a result of a natural hazard such as an earthquake or a tsunami, but to turn the hazard into a ‘serious disruption’ requires at least some deficiency of preparation - and it is important to be this critical in order to mitigate future risks. To be so critical is not to deny the clear reality that earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, blizzards, and hurricanes are all events that we have little to no control over - and require a comprehensive knowledge of climatology or physical geography to understand and predict. It is also important to acknowledge that the location of such an event plays a huge role - large earthquakes in deserts yield no impact on human life compared to those in vast cities (Smith, 2006), the only difference between a hazard and a disaster is a vulnerable population. More often than not, the true vulnerability of a population is within human control, instituting the argument that there is nothing natural about such disasters. A nation with a good level of investment in disaster risk reduction (DRR) will unsurprisingly yield much lower death tolls and economic losses than one with fewer preparations in place, and in some cases, this can be extremely frustrating. For example, in 2006, the US Army Corps of Engineers published a comprehensive report, detailing the large risk of flooding in Houston, urging some work to be done in order to lessen the risk, and this was ignored by officials. 11 years after this, Hurricane Harvey destroyed 135,000 homes and caused $125 billion worth of damage (McMahon, 2018). There will have been an array of seemingly suitable reasons that the report was ignored, and no work was done - yet when such stories are written in this simple nature, it highlights just how ridiculous situations like these are. There could not have been a clearer warning, yet in the moment no one with authority had the presence of mind to act on it. There are further examples that will be discussed, that illustrate the frustrating nature of the ignorance shown in so many instances, that have led to unnecessary loss of life and infrastructure, highlighting the importance of our role in DRR.
However, when the proper attention and resources are given to DRR, the results show a real sign of hope that we can control a large proportion of the impacts of natural hazards. There are a multitude of approaches to mitigating the risks posed, and have been successfully demonstrated globally on a number of occasions. The leading nation in DRR, Switzerland, has shown how this can be done efficiently and should be used as a template for other nations to follow suit. Their national disaster risk assessment, "applies a multi-hazard and whole-of-society approach by analysing 44 hazards in the domains of nature, technology, and society jointly with experts from the public and private sector and with representatives of academia, insurers, and associations” (Schmid, 2016). They are aware of their most significant threats; floods, rock falls, avalanches, wind storms, and landslides - and take steps to limit the impacts should any of these occur. Authorities undertake in-depth assessments of all vulnerabilities and hazards, creating hazard maps and assigning special attention to residual risks (Romero, 2008), overall increasing the preparedness of the nation - ensuring that there are not any surprises should a natural hazard occur. Japan is another top example of a prepared nation - specifically when it comes to the development of new technologies designed to mitigate risk. The nation is particularly vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis, and their preparations are some of the best in the world. For example, each high-rise building is required to have extra steel bracing, embedded hydraulic shock absorbers, and large rubber pads - ensuring their sturdiness should it be tested (Glanz et al, 2011). Billions of dollars have been spent developing technology to be used to fight the impacts of these tsunamis and earthquakes - notably devices called base isolation pads and energy dissipation units. The base isolation pads are installed at the bottom of the building, and the building sits on top of them - whilst dissipation units are, "hydraulic cylinders that elongate and contract as the building sways” and are built into the skeleton of the building (Glanz et al, 2011). Their technology is certainly impressive but equally important is the education that the government provides to the citizens. By comprehensively and thoroughly teaching the public about the risks and dangers related to these natural hazards, they are immediately putting themselves at an advantage in terms of survival. Each citizen will have been routinely drilled on what to do should one occur, and will know which of the clearly marked escape routes to use (Glanz et al, 2011).
By being so thorough, the likelihood of a natural hazard easily turning into a natural disaster is far less in Japan, and this example is a clear indicator of how unnatural the impacts of a disaster can be. Japan has also prepared itself in terms of its water infrastructure - by "retrofitting existing systems with seismic resilience upgrades, enhancing business continuity planning for sanitation systems, and creating a geographic information based asset management system that allows for quick identification and repair of damaged pipes and other assets” (Takemoto et al, 2021), a simple yet unbelievably effective and innovative solution. Furthermore, they have developed Business Continuity Planning (BCP) programmes - to mitigate the impacts of these hazards on businesses. These BCPs have, "helped firms reduce disaster losses and recover quickly, benefiting employees, supply chains, and the economy at large” (Takemoto et al, 2021). As well as this, Japan leads in terms of its communication networks. In terms of tsunamis, one of the biggest ways to minimise casualties is to evacuate to higher ground immediately after the earthquake (Kutty, 2022), and the importance of communicating evacuation information is often overlooked. In 2011, after Japan experienced a 9.0 magnitude earthquake that took around 18,000 lives, it was reported that around 35% of people in impacted areas were unable to hear the evacuation information playing from the speakers that had been set up on the streets (Kutty, 2022). So, to ensure this does not happen again, Sendai City has invested in "an emergency announcement system that uses fully automated drones to urge people to evacuate when tsunami alerts are issued” (Kutty, 2022). By doing this, Japan is placing itself at a phenomenal advantage, and they are simply utilising technology that already exists. When reading about systems such as these, it is frustrating to learn that Japan is quite the anomaly - as few other countries have DRR programmes in place that are to this high standard. All of their ideas and programmes that they have, revolve around their central theme of resilience. To be resilient during and after the occurrence of a natural hazard - to minimise death tolls alongside social, environmental, and economic losses. Why isn’t this the norm everywhere? It seems ludicrous that other nations, located in areas with similar or higher risk levels, would and have not gone to the same extent to protect themselves, to stay resilient against such disasters.
Yet, unfortunately, there are far too many examples of exactly this - countries opting not to be as prepared as physically possible for the occurrence of a natural hazard. More often than not, this will be for economic or political reasons, but this reason does not justify labelling the hazards as natural disasters when they inevitably take place. The avoidable nature of large death tolls highlights the unnatural aspect of these disasters, and an appropriately devastating example is related to the earthquakes across Turkey and Syria in 2023. On the 6th of February 2023, an initial 7.8 magnitude quake struck, followed by a subsequent 7.5 magnitude strike. Impacting over 26 million people throughout Turkey and Syria, these earthquakes are estimated to have taken over 50,000 human lives (British Red Cross, 2023). When reading all of the news reporting the death tolls, and the devastating stories of the thousands of families made homeless while sustaining severe injury, it is noticeable that it has been reported as a natural disaster. 7.8 magnitude earthquakes are natural. The human race can not control the size or frequency of earthquakes. Yet, if these earthquakes had occurred over the sea, they would not be classed as natural disasters. The disaster aspect of this has arrived due to the unfortunate location of the quakes and the sheer lack of preparation in these countries which has inadvertently killed thousands. Turkey is located on the Anatolian plate - bordering two major fault lines. The nation is aware of its geographical risk, even having experienced a similar magnitude earthquake of 7.6 in 1999 (British Red Cross, 2023). However, the majority of those reading around the event will be unaware that Turkey in particular has been tempting its fate. For years, experts in engineering and geology have been criticising and warning authorities that the relaxed enforcement surrounding construction codes is extremely dangerous. Not only has Turkey not been enforcing modern construction codes, but they have also been encouraging a real estate boom in earthquake-prone areas (Bilginsoy et al, 2023) - a frightening and sickening reality that has been horrifically shown up. The president of the Turkish Chamber of architects stated that it was common knowledge that a plethora of buildings in the impacted areas were constructed with "inferior materials and methods, and often did not comply with government standards” (Bilginsoy, 2023). Learning that hundreds of people would have been aware of the poorly constructed buildings, and knowing that they were not aspiring to do anything about it, begs the question - does anyone have blood on their hands here? Whilst it is a bold and large claim to make, one must believe that if those in authority are blatantly aware that thousands more deaths are likely to occur should there be an earthquake, and they choose to ignore it, it certainly would not be ridiculous to paint them as murderers. The term ‘natural disaster’ is a way for those responsible to pretend that the strikingly large death tolls were entirely out of their control, and it is wrong to let them get away with it.
Vexatiously, underprepared nations will continue to make headlines when natural hazards inevitably strike them in years to come. The response in the days, weeks, and months after this, is crucial in terms of limiting any damage incurred and limiting the likelihood of it being termed a ‘disaster’. The importance of the response is relevant in this enquiry due to the fact that again, there is nothing ‘natural’ about how human failure contributes to further loss of life, in some cases, in a horrifying manner. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans and the Gulf Coast of the USA. It devastated the country, due to the fact it was the sixth strongest Atlantic hurricane ever recorded (Levitt et al, 2009), but it can be argued that its predominant contributor towards its disastrous nature was the response that the USA gave to it, uncovering, "weaknesses, prejudices, and inequalities throughout the Gulf Coast and within the whole of American society” (Levitt et al, 2009). Similarly to Turkey and Syria, New Orleans was vastly underprepared physically for the occurrence of such a strong hurricane. As one of the most developed countries in the world, one would expect a strong level of DRR and planning to be in place, yet the hurricane reportedly breached the flood protection system in fifty-three different places (Levitt et al, 2009). There is a multitude of individual instances where humans failed each other within the story of Hurricane Katrina, and one of the most harrowing relates to thousands of people taking shelter inside the Louisiana Superdome. A severe lack of planning meant that the provision of aid and shelter was painfully slow, the majority of Louisiana was underwater and there was no power - as well as backup generators also having had failed (Gold, 2005). Local authorities would have been aware of the risk in this area, and the fact that there weren’t clear evacuation routes in place and proper flood management systems designed to withstand strong hurricanes, is nothing short of an immense failure - "with limited power, no plumbing, a shredded rood and not nearly enough supplies to deal with 30,000 evacuees, it became a symbol of how unprepared the city and country had been, for a storm that experts knew could arrive” (Scott, 2015). Those staying in the Superdome were left for days, with no support or aid coming in - they were left to fend for themselves in what became a horror film set. It was reported that these people were told just to wait. In the first few nights, at least two people, one of which was a child, were raped and one man even killed himself (Gold, 2005). It appears that civilisation seemed to crumble within a matter of days and to make matters worse, it became increasingly apparent that the government’s response seemed to favour those of certain races and classes, with 66% of African Americans stating in a survey that, "the government’s response to the situation would have been faster if most of the victims had been white” (Doherty, 2015).
Undoubtedly, natural hazards pose some of the largest threats to humankind - and it is clear that they can inflict serious impacts on vulnerable populations. To speak literally, yes, natural processes occur, and the outcome is certainly disastrous in many instances. But, as mentioned, there is a vast array of contributing factors that determine the extent of the damage that a hazard can do. Whether it be a social issue, for example, the institutionalised racism hindering relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina, or a political issue, for example, the incompetence of governments in Turkey and Syria failing to protect their people - or simply just an economic issue, each plays a vital role in making the impacts of a hazard worse. Yet, we have seen how by taking action, it is possible to limit damages, and one would argue that the examples of countries such as Japan and Switzerland provide an excellent specimen of taking back control of these hazards. The idea that there is no such thing as a natural disaster does not necessarily have to be a negative notion. If anything, it shows that the unnatural nature of these disasters is, to an extent, in our control, and therefore, with positive political, social, and economic inputs, the human race can have plenty of hope when it comes to mitigating the risks that are posed to us.
Bibliography:
Lake. T, (2022), "6 of the World’s Deadliest Natural Disasters” Available online at:
https://www.britannica.com/list/6-of-the-worlds-deadliest-natural-disasters (Accessed: 2 February 2023)
UNISDR, WMO, (2009) "UN System Task Team on the post-2015 UN Development Agenda” Available online at:
https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/untaskteam_undf/thinkpieces/3_disaster_risk_resilience.pdf (Accessed: 27 January 2023)
Smith. N, (2006) "There’s no such thing as a natural disaster” Available online at:
https://items.ssrc.org/understanding-katrina/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-natural-disaster/ (Accessed: 24 January 2023)
McMahon. M, (2018) "No such thing as a natural disaster” Available online at: https://isen.northwestern.edu/no-such-thing-as-a-natural-disaster (Accessed: 12 March 2023)
Romero. J, (2008) "Adaptation: Risk management in Switzerland” Available online at:
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/switzerland_extended_version.pdf (Accessed: 3 February 2023)
Schmid. F, (2016) "Switzerland’s focus on disaster risk reduction” Available online at: https://www.shareweb.ch/site/disasterriskreduction/themes-and-resources/DOC_themesresources/Themes-and-resources/CH%20Focus%20on%20DRR%20for%20GP2022%20_29042022.pdf (Accessed: 28 February 2023)
Glanz. J, Onishi. N, (2011) "Japan’s Strict Building Codes Saved Lives” Available online at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/world/asia/12codes.html#:~:text=In%20Japan%2C%20where%20earthquakes%20are,may%20sway%20during%20a%20quake. (Accessed: 4 March 2023)
Takemoto. S, Shibuya. N, Sakoda. K, (2021) "Learning from Megadisasters: A Decade of Lessons from the Great East Japan Earthquake” Available online at:
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2021/03/11/learning-from-megadisasters-a-decade-of-lessons-from-the-great-east-japan-earthquake-drmhubtokyo (Accessed: 22 February 2023)
British Red Cross, (2023) "The latest news on the earthquakes in Turkey and Syria” Available online at:
https://www.redcross.org.uk/stories/disasters-and-emergencies/world/turkey-syria-earthquake (Accessed: 12 March 2023)
Kutty. N, (2022) "Here’s how Japan is using technology to mitigate natural disasters” Available online at:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/11/cop27-how-japan-is-using-tech-mitigate-natural-disasters/ (Accessed: 27 February 2023)
Bilginsoy. Z, Fraser. S, (2023) "Turkey’s lax policing of building codes known before quake” Available online at: https://apnews.com/article/politics-2023-turkey-syria-earthquake-government-istanbul-fbd6af578a6056569879b5ef6c55d322 (Accessed: 20 February 2023)
Levitt. J, Whitaker. M, (2009) "Introduction: Truth Crushed to Earth Will Rise Again: Katrina and Its Aftermath” Available online at: https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.sussex.ac.uk/stable/j.ctt1dfnv3b.5?seq=1 (Accessed: 23 February 2023)
Gold. S, (2005) "Trapped in the Superdome: Refuge becomes a hellhole” Available online at:
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/trapped-in-the-superdome-refuge-becomes-a-hellhole/ (Accessed: 4 March 2023)
Scott. N, (2015) "Refuge of last resort: Five days inside the Superdome for Hurricane Katrina” Available online at:
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/08/refuge-of-last-resort-five-days-inside-the-superdome-for-hurricane-katrina (Accessed: 2 March 2023)
Doherty. C, (2015) "Remembering Katrina: Wide racial divide over government’s response” Available online at:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/27/remembering-katrina-wide-racial-divide-over-governments-response/ (Accessed: 23 February 2023)
