Institute of Development Studies

Natural hazards, unnatural disasters: Understanding disasters in the context of development

23 February 2011

At last week's Sussex Development Lecture, IDS Research Fellow Terry Cannon examined the concept that earthquakes don't kill people, poorly constructed buildings do.

Terry used this example to explain how a distinction between natural hazards (such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones) and unnatural disasters needs to be made, and that disasters need to be understood within the context of development. Terry's lecture was based around ideas set out in the book At Risk, which he co-authored.

There's no such thing as a natural disaster

Terry explained that from the mid 1970s onwards there was a paradigm shift away from the idea of ‘natural disasters', to the belief that all disasters are socially constructed. In 1976 in the Nature journal, academics argued that disasters were caused by socio-economic factors rather than natural factors.

Terry used the earthquake in Haiti in January 2010 as an example to demonstrate the concept that there is no such thing as a natural disaster. He referred to an article on the Law and Disorder blog, which highlighted how the misery and suffering of the Haitian people was caused by the fragile economic situation and poor governance rather than the hurricane itself.

Social construction of disasters

The idea of the socially constructed disaster was more recently explored in a World Bank publication in 2010, Natural Hazards, Unnatural Disasters. Terry highlighted the need to understand people's levels of vulnerability in order to fully explain disasters, rather than relying on a physical explanation alone.

He explained that certain social systems can cause people to live in dangerous places or make risky decisions. For example, people will choose to live somewhere because of the potential for them to make a living or because they simply do not have the political or economic power to make a different choice. Terry used the communities who live on precarious cliff sides in La Paz, Bolivia as an example of how communities make decisions based on their assessment of the risk and their ability to cope with the inherent dangers.

Understanding the determining factors

Terry explained the Crunch Pressure and Release (PAR) Model which sets out a number of vulnerability components which might determine a person's level of exposure to a natural hazard. These components include:

• Livelihood and resilience
• Health and well-being
• Quality of house construction and location
• Quality of building controls
• Governance - rights and status of civil society

These vulnerability components are determined by the social frame - class, gender, ethnicity, caste. The social frame is in turn determined by wider factors such as national and international political economy, power relations, demographics, conflicts and war, environmental trends and debt crises.

Mitigation and adaptation

Terry argued that to mitigate the risk of hazards, certain development issues need to be addressed. However a distinction needs to be made between development and economic growth. Mitigating the risks of the most vulnerable to natural hazards relies on good governance and robust infrastructure alongside a strong market economy.

Long term investment in adaptation to deal with the impact of climate change is also crucial. Climate change makes natural hazards worse, undermines livelihoods and exacerbates poverty. Investing in preventative measures, based on need rather than return on investment, is imperative.

 

Related Events

Sussex Development Lecture: Natural Hazards, Unnatural Disasters

Dates: 17 Feb 2011