Advanced Countries and Better mitigation. Flashcards
Introduction?
=> Define ACs, EDCs, LIDCs. (Economic development, industrialisation, social and technological development).
=> Types of mitigation.
=> Exploring if ACs BUT also considering….
Mitigation against vulnerability - through monitoring?
Advanced countries have the funds and resources to be able to invest in mitigating vulnerabilities through technology.
One way this can be seen is through monitoring volcanic activity through methods such as seismograph detections of earthquake and tremors, changes in gas emissions and changes in ground deformation. -> Helps to remove unpredictability of hazards.
Example: In Italy, Mt.Etna: Italy has one of the world’s most sophisticated monitoring systems. It has an effective warning system, and is highly effective in keeping the population safe. Low fatality rate directly attributed to the volcano (less than 100) over the last few decades, despite multiple eruptions a year.
FURTHERMORE, this contrasts LIDCs like Goma, who are not able to mitigate as well as ACs. They have less financial and technological ability.
Example: Goma, Mt Nyiragongo. 2,000 deaths were caused within the first half an hour, and 15% of Goma was destroyed, as well as 12,500 homes collapsing due to lava flow. Mitigation against vulnerability was not here, with several seismographs being out of action due to vandalism.
FURTHERMORE, ACs, are able to fund their own mitigation against vulnerability. Goma was reliant on the World Bank and external aid, such as the USAID donating 3 seismographs the year before. The World Bank had been funding an international team of scientists.
Mitigation for vulnerabilities - education?
If people are educated about hazards, they become more aware of the risks that come with them, and are more aware about the precautions, and actions to take in an emergency. They will also be better prepared for the aftermath of a disaster, and will be able to cope and recover faster.
For example, people residing near Mauna Loa in Hawaii receive significant education from the HVO (Hawaiian Volcano Observatory) and USGS (United States Geological Survey) on the volcanic hazards that can occur in the area, meaning that people and the government are able to prepare accordingly.
Alternatively in Indonesia, locals living close to the volcano only have somewhat of an understanding of the potential hazards Mount Krakatoa poses. As the average student there leaves school at the age of 15 and possibly even earlier in combination with the fact that those who live near the volcano are there by force due to poverty, the limited understanding of these dangers, like not even being aware of Mount Krakatoa being a volcano, can pose significant risk in the event of disaster (such as in the 2018 eruption when more than 400 were killed and thousands more injured).
This would drastically increase their vulnerability by the reduction in risk perception
Mitigation against the event?
Mitigation against an event tries to tackle the actual hazards of the event itself.
ACs have been proven to do this, being able to tackle both earthquakes and volcanoes, helping to prevent primary and secondary hazards from their respective events.
Example: In 1983, to divert the flow of lava, Mt Etna successfully made use of explosives and earthen barriers.
Example: ACs have also helped to prevent secondary hazards. Japan during the Tohoku EQ had an immediate shut-off preventing any dangerous gas leaks which may have added further to fatalities. The usage of flexible plugs and connections for water and gas meant that there was NO risk of fire.
WHEREAS, with the EQ in Haiti, an LIDC, it had little means to be able to mitigate the event, already struggling from previous hazards such as two tropical storms and two hurricanes. -> Did not have capacity to cope with another event or means to be able to mitigate an event.
BUT talk about LIPS and Supervolcanoes, mega-tsunamis. Such as Japan, 40m. 1/100. Would get even bigger with LIPS.
Mitigation against losses?
Mitigation against losses can involve emergency strategies, as well as both short and long term strategies.
Advanced countries are often well placed to help mitigate against this, having both the resources and influences to do so.
Example Japan: They had well rehearsed recovery and reconstruction plans to tackle the impacts of the EQ at a local, regional and national level, and were able to act immediately, and they were able to rebuild quickly after. International importance -> Led to financial market instability. G7 unprecedented selling of yen against dollar. Yen was able to recover and tripled in value. Talk about more globalisation.
ADDITIONALLY, after the E16 EQ in Iceland, another AC, they were also very successful in mitigating against losses. Similarly, it also has international strength. Part of the EU, with a large combined GDP of about $46,000. Financial capacity to cope in emergencies such as this.
HOWEVER: efficiency not simply restricted to ACs. After the Sichuan EQ, China was able to respond very successfully: police and military roadblocks, as well as the use of disinfectant helped to reduce any secondary hazards that could have emerged such as disease and flooding from aftershocks.
Furthermore, build back better. -> Local economy. China’s new laws.
But Japan, elderly and young, has radiation exposure.
