Why
are the effects of natural hazards generally less harmful in HICs than in LICs?
Preparation
and prediction in HICs are usually better than in LICs thus the effects are
less harmful. HICs are generally wealthier thus they can afford better
prediction technology. For example, USA
has top-notch satellite technology that feeds back to the National Hurricane
Centre in Miami Bangladesh Japan
Preparation
in HICs is much better in several ways. Firstly, the warning systems are much
better. For example in Florida, there are sirens, messages sent to mobile
phones as well as news broadcasted via the radio, internet and television. This
is much more effective than in LICs such as in Bangladesh where megaphones are
used. A person cycles through the farms and city yelling out warnings through a
megaphone. This is ineffective as there is a chance that many people won’t hear
them. Also, many people in Bangladesh had no idea how bad the cyclone was going
to be, and they did not know how to prepare. (Some did not believe the
warnings.)
Moreover,
their housing was of poor quality, so they did not need to strengthen it
whereas in Florida people boarded up their windows. Furthermore, they had
nowhere else to go for lack of hurricane shelters, and there was no
transportation they could take. Thus they stayed at home. This resulted in more
deaths as their houses may collapse on them, or they would be swept by the
storm surge as they remained in low lying areas. (Due to lack of education in
LICs, many people did not know the after effects of some natural disasters. For
example, in Bangladesh, many people did not know about the storm surge that
could flood areas and drown people. They also did not know about the eye of the
storm, where it is calm. So they go outside to survey the damage only to be
swept up by the hurricane when the eye passes. In other LICs prone to
earthquakes, some people may not know about the aftershocks that could be quite
high on the Richter scale too.)
Another
reason why effects are less severe in HICs is they have stockpiles of food and
water. These are kept in the shelters built in case of emergencies. (For
example, in Florida, there are elevated shelters built along the coastline for
people living near the coast to protect them from the storm surge.) In LICs,
there isn’t as much food surplus so people can’t store cans of food; nor do
they have the money to do so anyway. One effect of natural disasters in LICs is
starvation and disease spreading. The water sources like reservoirs are
contaminated, often with cholera, and people drinking it get sick and
spread the disease. Agriculture is important in LICs, and with the crops
destroyed by the disaster the people have no food to eat. Many people die of
starvation. On the contrary, in HICs, people can still survive with stockpiles
of canned food and water prepared beforehand.
There
are less deaths in HICs because the people are well prepared. They have
constant drills and practices so that they know what to do when an emergency occurs.
For example in Japan, all the schools have frequent earthquake drills where
people practice evacuating or hiding beside tables. In Florida, there are even
evacuation routes and road signs directing people to safe areas. In LICs, the
transportation system is less organised and there aren’t any safe places for
people to evacuate to. Also, the infrastructure is weak leading to bridges and
highways collapsing. This could injure a lot of people. Traffic lights also
cease to function, hence leading to traffic jams-so even if people want to
evacuate, they would be stuck. In HICs, there are buildings designed to be
resistant against natural disasters. For example, the Taipei 101 in Taiwan is
designed to be earthquake-resistant. It has a tuned mass damper that swings in
the opposite direction the building does in an earthquake to prevent it from
collapsing. In Japan, buildings have to comply with regulations to make it
earthquake resistant so that less people are harmed by falling debris from
collapsing buildings.
The
responses in HICs really help reduce the effect of natural hazards. Short-term
responses such as rescue teams (firefighters, search and rescue teams,
ambulances etc) have had regular training thus they know what to do. They won’t
panic, they have the transport to get to places in need of help, and they also
have sufficient equipment. This is good because they can save a lot more people
if they are well prepared. In LICs, training, transport and equipment need a
lot of money and so they cannot afford it. The response is sluggish and poor as
people are momentarily dazed and do not know what to do. For example, in
Bangladesh, the rescue teams did not have enough medical equipment and they did
not have enough simple things like plasters. They did not have torches or
blankets to provide people with comfort and many people died without sufficient
aid and medical treatment. In HICs, there were backup electricity and water
sources so people were able to live quite comfortably. They also set about to
repair any damaged telephone lines so that people could contact family. This
reduced any trauma people suffered as they felt more secure and they knew their
family was informed.
The
long term responses in HICs such as rebuilding any collapsed infrastructure and
housing was much better as they could afford to do so. HICs such as Japan and
Florida managed to rebuild most of the buildings, transport infrastructure and
housing units within a decade of the disaster. They also improved building
designs to make it more resistant. In LICs such as Philippines, there are still
people displaced from the Mount Pinatubo eruption as the country does not have
the money to rebuild all the houses. They also don’t have money to build it
well. Many people still have to live in temporary housing with poor facilities.
The resettling of people in LICs is not effective and it is often very slow.
LICs such as Bangladesh and Philippines are interdependent, they have to rely
on other countries to give them financial aid and more.
