| |
Indian earthquake tragedy demonstrates need for global disaster prevention mentality
Released: January 21, 2001
Palo Alto, CA -- Relief organizations and governments from
all over the world are responding to the second major earthquake
crisis in two weeks. In the tragedies that have recently affected
India and El Salvador, more than 25,000 lives have been lost,
and damage can be expected to run as high as billions of dollars.
While response to these disasters should be the current focus,
now is also the best time to plan for future disasters, say
GeoHazards International (GHI) earthquake experts, who have
helped cities find low cost ways to prevent wide spread devastation
such as that currently being experienced in India and El Salvador.
Urban communities of developing countries are especially vulnerable
to disaster due to their burgeoning populations, generally non-existent
land-use and emergency response planning, and poor construction.
The economic allure of these urban centers draw inhabitants
to them, often resulting in large populations residing in high-risk
areas. However, the economies of these countries are fragile
and a major disaster can usually take years to recover from.
"Unfortunately and far too often, decision-makers and the
general public in communities of developing countries assume
their risk is minimal or that the options to reduce their risk
are just too expensive," said Dr. Brian Tucker, president of
the Palo Alto based nonprofit earthquake risk management organization.
Consequently, he said, they live in hope that a disaster will
not occur during their term in office or their lifetime. The
latest tragedies in India and El Salvador indicate that this
is an unfortunate gamble.
Shaking from the magnitude 7.9 earthquake which occurred in
the Western Indian state of Gujarat early Friday morning was
felt as far as Nepal and Bangladesh, more than a thousand miles
away. The number of deaths due to Friday's earthquake is currently
estimated in the tens of thousands and is expected to climb
as the equipment and response coordination necessary to respond
to the emergency prove insufficient.
While effective earthquake disaster prevention can depend
on various factors (such as land use planning, emergency response
capacity and earthquake-resistant construction), GHI experts
argue the key lies in assessing which factors will ultimately
affect a city the most and what actions can be taken to make
the biggest difference. This week, experts from GeoHazards International
are presenting results of a project they developed to measure
the vulnerability of cities to earthquakes and the effectiveness
of different actions to reduce their risk.
"Through our risk management projects in communities around
the world, we have learned that people don't consciously endanger
their lives or those of their families," said Tucker. He explained
that, more often than not, people make decisions that can ultimately
negatively affect them based on limited knowledge about their
risk and the options they have to reduce it. GHI works with
vulnerable communities to help them make better informed decisions
and prepare themselves against future disasters.
Early observations made by GHI for the Indian city of Mumbai,
which is located approximately 350 miles from the epicenter
of Friday's Indian earthquake, indicate that 50% of the city's
12 million people are concentrated in the main business district
of the city, at the tip of a peninsula, from which there exist
only a few transportation routes. Moreover, buildings in the
city lack any seismic design considerations despite the fact
that Mumbai has recently been evaluated to be in a zone of significant
seismic activity.
Stressing the need to anticipate as many problems as possible
before the characteristic chaos of any disaster sets in, GHI
expert Amy Young argued that cities should take the time to
carry out such vulnerability assessments. "Similar accessibility
and construction problems as those identified in Mumbai have
been identified in other cities GHI has worked in and, after
being assessed in terms of their relative effectiveness, appropriate
risk reducing actions can be proposed."
While many people continue to think of building seismically
safe construction as the only, and expensive, answer to earthquake
preparedness, in its Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management
Project, GHI estimated that incorporating earthquake resistant
design and materials would require only an extra 5-10% of the
new construction cost. Many other inexpensive risk reducing
initiatives have been identified.
For example, in Guayaquil, Ecuador, where it has been estimated
that more than 25,000 people would be killed in the event of
a large earthquake, GHI helped the city to identify the need
for a disaster mitigation unit. This unit was created and has
been granted municipal funding to supervise and coordinate the
many other activities necessary to reduce the city's risk. "Whereas
the mechanism for measuring accountability was previously inexistent,"
said GHI Latin American project coordinator Dr. Carlos Villacis,
"Guayaquil's newly created department is the first step toward
providing the supervision necessary to ensure appropriate actions
are taken before, during, and after the disaster strikes."
Similar efforts are being seen in other GHI project sites,
such as Tijuana, Mexico and Antofagasta, Chile. In Tijuana,
a city with more than 1.5 million inhabitants and an exploding
population and construction rate, a risk mitigation council
has been formed. One of the council's first actions was to formulate
a regulation that requires proof of earthquake-resistant construction
be shown before permits to open a school can be granted. In
the Chilean coastal town of Antofagasta, the first of six schools
identified as being located in areas of tsunami potential is
currently being relocated.
Even the costlier solution of retrofitting vulnerable construction
has been possible in poor regions like Kathmandu Valley. Earlier
this month, Tucker attended the inauguration of four retrofit
schools in the Valley -- an effort made possible by local support
and donations of material, as well as Silicon Valley support
channeled to the region by GHI. To date, 10 schools have been
retrofit in Kathmandu Valley and Quito, Ecuador, another GHI
project site, resulting in a safer environment for thousands
of children.Experts at GHI believe nations and entities that
can afford to help these communities must do so. Many global
corporations have plants or headquarters in developing countries.
Even if these corporations can afford to construct their own
earthquake-safe buildings, there is no guarantee that their
business will be uninterrupted in the event of a disaster. "What
good is an undamaged manufacturing plant if its workforce is
unable to reach it due to damaged roads or, even worse, if a
large percentage of this workforce is killed?" This is the scenario
Villacis speaks of in Tijuana, Mexico. There, GHI is working
with the local risk mitigation council to involve the city's
multi-million dollar maquiladora industry in the effort to share
the responsibility of making the city safer.
Such prevention foresight is especially important in cities
of developing countries, where GHI has focused its work since
its inception in 1993. "Economies of developing countries are
fragile, and the whole world benefits when these areas grow
strong," said Tucker. Resources in developing countries are
generally limited, and, in case of a disaster, entire countries
can be overwhelmingly affected. Take a recent example -- costs
to avoid loss through preparation and planning are insignificant
compared with the billions of dollars that are now expected
will be needed to help El Salvador recover from the earthquake
that struck it two weeks ago.
Additional graphics, statistics, disaster mitigation examples,
and Spanish language translation are available.
#######
For further information contact:
Brian Tucker
GeoHazards International
(650) 614-9050
tucker@geohaz.org |
