The Presentation
Thursday's presentation on disaster vulnerability focused on the issues arising out of 2005's hurricane Katrina. The presenters discussed a variety of aspects related to disaster vulnerability, and input they’re first hand experience with the communities in New Orleans. I really enjoyed hearing about the first hand experiences and I thought it helped put the disaster into perspective. The first hand accounts made the event that much more real, and it really showed how passionate they were about the topic.
Disaster Selectivity?
The article, presentation and text all discussed the notion of disaster vulnerability. Those who were seen as more vulnerable were commonly of lower socio-economic status, or groups of racialized minorities. But, I don't think natural disasters are selective in their victims and I think some groups are disproportionately placed in areas with high frequency of natural disasters. The film touched on this when it showed how some areas of New Orleans (higher land) were not hit hard by the hurricane, and the fact that the French once settled these areas. Those of a lower social class or racialized minority were put on the lower plots of land, knowingly that if disaster strikes they would be hit first and hardest. Although this is very true in many cases, it is also true that some disasters are unavoidable, and even powerful, wealthy people are hit with the grave tragedy. Wildfires often spread through California, not selectively burning one house over the next, rather as destruction rages everyone from an average Joe to a Hollywood celebrity home comes in contact with the flame. Here it is obvious that some are not more vulnerable than others, and what it truly comes down to is the fact that natural disaster have existed for million's of years, and what makes them hazards is the mere presence of humans. If no one is around to experience the natural occurrence, than it remains just that, but when humans become involved it becomes a hazard, something dangerous with a negative connotation.
Question:
As the population begins to expand and we consume more land with continually decided to live in areas that are environmentally unstable, due to natural events. Do you think there should be restrictions on where we live to safe ourselves from coming in contact with some of these natural events (Mudslides, wildfires, below sea level areas)? What things can be done to keep people in these areas safe? (Risk management strategies).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think there can be any restrictions on Nautral events are prevalent in every area. We are at risks for hurricanes, etc; no matter where we live. The only thing we can count on is to develop stronger risk management strategies that wont result in financial losses (like 46 billion for Hurricane Katrina, 23 billion for Hurrican Andrew). A lot of Katrina victims were left in financial shambles. One of the strategies I believe should be implemented is, in regards to the totality of the situation, is a restructuration of insurance premiums. Special treatment should be given to residents who live in high level hazard prone areas (residents who are low-income insured or uninsurable) and it should come from general public funding and not through insurance premium subsidies.
ReplyDeleteI thought it is interesting that individuals continue to settle in these vulnerable places in general, but then I thought back to the ideas of marketing and realized the saying "and i have some swampland if you want that too" to actually be possible with good framing. Housing developers and insurance companies rely on peoples belief that they have the expert opinion, and through framing and the sale of insurance for these high risk places individuals inevitably fall victim to environmental vulnerability. For housing developers in low lying areas and in mudslide regions i think walls and warning should be a mandate but seem unlikely with the "it wont happen here" mentality and the picture perfect image of a new home.
ReplyDelete