FLOOD03837 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

46 ~ () > ~ w ~ ~ w w ~ o L ~ o W " " o w " < () o I () Aglow il1 the eerie afterlight of wildfire, charred trees mark the path of Australia's Ash Wednesday disaster. Emerging from the dry bush in a suddel1 onslaught, the February 1983 conflagration fed upon hundreds of homes, taking 69 lives and displacing 11,000 in the states of South Australia and Victoria. As Australia's most costly-and deadly- wildfire, the Ash Wednesday fire brought home the vulnerability of the wildlandl urbml imerface. firefighters, and local governments as to their understanding and perceptions of risks and the factors that motivate them in relation to wildfire; ~ integration of existing social, economic, fire behavior, and environmental models to develop programs for influencing behavior toward fire hazards; and ~ assessment of the hazard and the vulnerability for cities at risk from large, uncontrolled fires (especially earthquake-ignited fires), and develop- ment of plans for fire control in the event of stteet blockage by collapsed buildings, damage to water supply and distribution, and damage to fire stations and communications systems. SOCIOECONOMIC ASPECfS OF HAZARD REDUCTION To be successful, methods for reducing natural hazards must be carefully adjusted to the commu- nities they serve. Science and technology can help avert natural disasters, but only when applied with a community's social, cultural, political, and economic context in mind. An area's economic and other resources - and the competing de- mands for them - affect the level of risk it will tolerate and determine the approaches it takes to hazard reduction. An area with abundant re- sources and relatively few unsafe structures may, for example, choose seismic reinforcement of its buildings to minimize risks. Another community where resources are scarce and the number of unsafe structures is large may choose to live with moderate risk, relying on short-term earthquake prediction and careful emergency planning. Hazard reduction measures have unforeseen economic consequences. For example, how would the prediction of an earthquake within 5 years affect the economy of a mid-sized community? In some areas, well-intentioned international relief efforts following a major disaster have bank- rupted local businesses by eliminating their mar- kets. In other instances, unforeseen economic benefits from particular measures could have justified greater investment in hazard reduction than seemed reasonable at the time. Hazard reduction measures often benefit some segments of a community at the expense of others. For example, removing vulnerable flood plain homes or requiring costly seismic reinforcement of old buildings can reduce the supply of low-cost housing for the poor. And tax exemptions for the costs of upgrading the safety of privately owned buildings are of little use to many retirees and others with a small or no taxable income. Specific approaches to hazard reduction can sometimes violate widely shared community val- ues. Some historic buildings that are unsafe have been insensitively destroyed or defaced. Or the natural beauty of streams and waterfronts has been marred by concrete channels and seawalls. In some instances, the acceptance of risk, combined with an emphasis on emergency evacuation plan- ning, may be preferable to environmental desecra- tion or the profanation of sacred sites. Why does available scientific and technological knowledge exceed our nse of it to rednce hazards?