Geography 312 (Natural Hazards) Instructor: Ian Hutchinson (RCB7226) ph: 778-782-3232 email: [email protected] Course email: [email protected] TAs: Elizabeth

Geography 312 (Natural Hazards)

Instructor: Ian Hutchinson (RCB7226)ph: 778-782-3232 email: [email protected]

Course email: [email protected]: Elizabeth Baird & Andrew

Perkins

Geography 312 - Lecture 1 Course outline

- schedule, lectures, assignments, - text, grades

Term project

Course themes

Lecture schedule The course schedule and all the Powerpoint

lecture slides are available on the web. Go to:

http://www.sfu.ca/~ianh/geog312/

“Thumbnail” versions are available for purchase.

The lectures are NOT taped.

Tutorials/Assignments To preview the assignments go to the course

web site. Printed versions of each assignment will be handed out prior to each tutorial.

Suggested readings for each tutorial are available on the web site as pdf’s

Tutorial grades are based on participation in workshops and discussion groups. Assignments are for educational purposes; they are not graded.

Text, Grading….

• Text - Keller, E.A., Blodgett, R.H. & Clague, J.J. 2008. “Natural Hazards”. Pearson Canada

• Grading Tutorial participation: 20% Term project 30% Midterm exam 20% Final exam 30%*

Term project

Choose a topic (check with TA); Keep a journal (notes, lists of

sources, etc.); Prepare a poster in Powerpoint; Copy the poster to a CD (along

with your journal)

The concept of “natural” hazards

Definition:“Events associated with normal*geophysical and biological processes that cause death, injury or loss of home, property or income”.

* the intensity of the hazard may be influenced by human modifications of the landscape (e.g. deforestation and urbanization influence flood frequency and magnitudes) or climate (e.g. heat waves in urban areas).

Source: Emmanuelle Bournay; UNEP/GRID-Arendal

Concept of hazard thresholds [ ] (e.g. fatalities/damage per earthquake)

Earthquake magnitude

Death

s

Dam

age (

$M

)

1 ………………………………………… 10

10000

1000

100

10

1

1000

100

10

1

Natural Hazards• From the preceding it follows that:

Natural hazards are associated with extreme events in the normal operation of the planet’s geological, hydrological and ecological systems.

Natural hazards are limited to inhabited areas (i.e. vulnerable settlements or economic infrastructure).

Concept of vulnerability (e.g. fatalities in two contrasting societies)

Death

s

1 ………………………………………… 10

1000

100

10

1

Earthquake magnitude

e.g.

Per

u, Ir

an?

e.g.

Cal

iforn

ia?

The concept of risk

RISK = HAZARD X VULNERABILITY

Hazard = natural processes capable of causing death and/or destruction;

Vulnerability = social or economic sensitivity to the effects of hazards

Calculating risk

Example 1: same hazard; contrasting vulnerabilities

Magnitude 6.5 earthquake in south-central California, on Dec. 22, 2003: 7 dead, ~50 injured because the event occurred in a thinly inhabited area (low risk event)

Magnitude 6.5 earthquake in city of Bam (Iran) on Dec. 26, 2003: ~40,000 dead, ~30,000 injured; much of the city destroyed (very high risk event)

Calculating risk

Example 2: contrasting hazards; same risk

Severe snowfall in the Lower Mainland

Annual risk ($) = Pblizzard X Cost* = 0.1 X $10 M? = $1 M

Annual risk ($) = Pimpact X Cost* = 0.000001 X $100 G? = $1 M?

“Tunguska” asteroid impact in the Lower Mainland

*Costs = deaths, injuries, building collapse, rescue, cleanup, lost production, rebuilding, etc.; (often very difficult to assign a dollar value).

Combating risk: the fivefive steps

•Assess: Assess: characterize the hazard regimecharacterize the hazard regime;;

•Mitigate: reduce vulnerability;•Prepare: educate; warn; evacuate;

•Respond: remove bodies, locate and treat survivors, destroy unstable structures;•Recover: rebuild communities and infrastructure Eff

ect i

ven

essT

ime

Pre

- Post-

Combating risk: roles

•Assessment: Assessment: natural and social natural and social scientists,scientists,

(GEOG 312)(GEOG 312)•Mitigation: engineers, etc.•Preparation: emergency managers, etc.•Initial Response: medics, etc.•Recovery: planners, etc.

Assessment: types of risk

“physical” = living in a hazardous area “personal” = your age/gender/education

influences your risk “economic” = poverty reduces your options “structural” = poor quality buildings and lifelines “political” = limited access to information and/or

resources “institutional” - your local, state or national

government does not enforce regulations

all of these may apply!

Hazard assessment

Environmental processes

Causes andprecursors

Recurrence

Forecasting andmitigation

Magnitude-frequencyrelations

Natural scientists analyse the physical risks:

Assessing individual hazards:

e.g. hurricanes in Atlantic Canada

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.



Damage resulting from the high winds and heavy rain of Hurricane Juan in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Sept. - Oct. 2003

Photos: CBC News archives

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor


Hazard assessment: causes

Hurricane Juan, Sept. 28, 2003. Juan was an exceptional

storm. Why did it track directly

northward?



Juan was forecast to

reach Nova Scotia as a 65- to 70-

knot hurricane,

but intensified to

85 knots (a “category 2” hurricane).

Why?

Hazard assessment: magnitude

Answer at: http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/juan/intensity_e.html

Halifax last suffered a direct hurricane strike in 1893.

Do hurricanes in the Atlantic provinces therefore recur about once every 100 years on average?

Sources of information:• Instrumental records (~100 yr record)• Explorers’ logs, settlers’ diaries (~400 yr record?)• Micmac oral traditions (?)• Biological evidence (e.g. downed trees; several

centuries?)• Geological evidence (e.g. overwash deposits;

several millennia?)

Hazard assessment: recurrence

Hazard assessment:

will the future differ from the past?



Graph: Munich Re, 2004

Tropical storms and hurricanes in the NW Atlantic

Hazard assessment: focusing on place, not process

• Case studies of individual hazards do not reveal the hazardousness of a particular place

• multiple risks in any area• risk assessment must integrate all

of these• = local “geography of danger”

A “geography of danger” for Halifax, Nova Scotia might look like this:

blizzards and ice stormsextreme temperaturesfogsdroughtspests and diseaseshurricanes tsunamis

High risk

Low risk

Towards a global geography of

danger: the complexity of the task

• 20% of Earth’s land surface exposed to severe hazards;

• >30% of North American population live in hazard-prone areas;

• Many areas (e.g. Indonesia, Taiwan, Guatemala) exposed to multiple severe hazards.

Deaths from natural hazards (1991-2005)

Floods

Storms

DroughtsSlides

Earthquakes and tsunamis

Eruptions

N.B. excludes epidemics



2007



2006

Earthquakes, eruptionsStorms Droughts, wildfiresFloods

A global geography of danger: naturalcatastrophes [2005-7]

Source: Munich Re Annual Reports



2005

A geography of danger:natural hazard fatalities [1991-

2005]

Data: EM-Dat

Oceania

Africa

Europe

Americas

Asia

0 5 10 15

Asia

Americas

Europe

Africa

Oceania

0 20 40 60Annual number of deaths (thousands) Mortality rate / M population

A geography of danger: the known

(e.g. Indonesia [data 1907-2004])

cycl

on

e

lan

dsl

ide

dro

ug

ht

flood

v

olc

an

o

‘qu

ake

Source: Center for Hazards and Risk Research, Columbia University

And the unexpected!

“the global analysis undertaken in these projects is clearly limited by issues of scale as well as by the availability and quality of data.”

Arthur Lerner-Lam (Columbia U.)

Tsunamis

2004/12

2005/03

2006/07

Nimble systems: anticipating unexpected hazards

ALL the earthquakes in California in the 1990’s occurred on previously

unknown faults!

“On January 17, 1994, the costliest earthquake in the history of the United States struck the Los Angeles region, killing 57 people, leaving 20,000 homeless, and causing more than $20 billion in damage to homes, public buildings, freeways, and bridges. This magnitude 6.7 quake occurred 10 miles beneath the town of Northridge on a previously unknown ramp-like ("thrust") fault not visible at the Earth's surface.”

USGS Fact-Sheet 110-99

Source:The Economist (February 7, 2004)

Assessingvulnerabilty

Vulnerability assessment

Social scientists analyzethe vulnerability matrix

Environmental processes

Perception Social impacts

Mitigation andeducation

Disaster response

Investigating personal vulnerability: perception

Hewitt & Burton (1974)

London, Ontario

Investigating personal vulnerability: fatalities by age

0

5

10

15

20

25

Aceh (2004) Bangladesh (1991)

% of population

0-14

15-49

50+

Indian Oceantsunami

Age group

Bay of Bengalstorm surge

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

New Orleans

% of population

0-1920-59>60

Hurricane Katrina (2005)

Investigating personal vulnerability: fatalities by gender

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

BandaAceh

AcehBarat

Aceh East TamilNadu

equality

rati

o o

f fe

male

:male

death

s

Sumatra India

Data from Indian Ocean tsunami (2004)

WHY? differing strength? stamina? cultural behaviours? (e.g. taboos - swimming? climbing trees?)

However, the female fatality rate during Hurricane Katrina was only slighter higher (4%) than that of the male population, and this was likely a product of the greater number of women in the over-60’s age group.

Investigating economic vulnerability

# events # deaths deaths/event

Japan 11 254 23

Phi li ppi ne s 22 4322 196

Bang la de sh 8 10733 1341

Deaths from typhoons (1980-88)

wealth = greater preparedness

Investigating economic

vulnerability (Hurricane Charley, Fla., 2004;Hurricane Katrina, La., 2005)

poverty = greater exposure to risk;wealth = greater preparedness & more flexible response?



(P

hoto

: Ass

ocia

ted

Pre

s s)

US Hurricane hazards

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Deaths and damages (US$M)

Deaths

Damage (US$M; 1992 $)

10 per. Mov. Avg. (Damage (US$M;1992 $))

10 per. Mov. Avg. (Deaths) Changing patterns of

vulnerability in the

developed world

Structural-institutional vulnerability (e.g. Marmara earthquake, Turkey, 1999)

~17,000 dead; 15% of buildings collapsed near epicentre (CA code but ~70% illegal - amnesty for illegal buildings; little professional liability; corruption ubiquitous; widespread on-site modifications, e.g. extra floors, of approved buildings); communications cut off; nationwide power outage; failure of political leadership.

Photos: Damaged buildings in the vicinity of Gölcük

Investigating personal responses:

flight or fight?

• KR (aged 22) said that she’d never build in a forest again after her Kettle Valley home was reduced to ash

• KR (aged 35) said he’d rebuild in an instant. His family’s home was razed. “It was a fluke” …“If you live on the ocean and a tidal wave comes, they’d say we shouldn’t live on the ocean.”

Quoted in The Province, Aug. 25, 2003 (p. A5)

Reactions to the Okanagan Mountain Park fire of August, 2003

Investigating the agencies: (e.g. post-Hurricane Katrina)

were the evacuation orders effective? were rescue efforts well-organized? did everyone in need find the shelters or aid centres? was aid distribution effective?

Post-disaster recovery?(Hurricane Katrina )

2006:• population of New Orleans ~ 50% of that prior to hurricane; 45%

fewer hospital beds; ~1/3 of schools still shut;• Rents increased by 40% in one year because of housing shortage;

suicide rate in city quadrupled; almost 90% of ‘refugees’ in Houston still unemployed;

• Port of NO (#1 port in US) operating at less than 50% capacity 3 months after hurricane.

August 2008 survey of residents of New Orleans:• 55% feel that there has been little or no progress in rebuilding

neighborhoods.• 59% feel that there has been little or no progress in making medical

facilities and services more available.• 72% said federal recovery money has been "mostly misspent."• 58% said NO had a ”very serious" problem with political corruption.• 84% face continuing health problems, and 65% reported some sort of

chronic condition or disability, up from 45% in 2006.

Increasing global vulnerability?

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s

US

$ G

(Data: Munich Re, 2001)

Losses from natural disasters

Sourc

e:

Em

manuelle

Bourn

ay;

UN

EP/G

RID

- Are

ndal

Information and perception (reported volcanic eruptions, 1860-1980)

Has there been an overall increase in activity?

“How horrible it is to have so many people killed! And what a blessing that one cares for none of

them!”Jane Austen writing to her sister on news of the Peninsular War (May 13, 1811)

1 …………………. 13 ….. week

Blessings?Personal vulnerability? - residence, workplaceCareer path? - community vulnerabilityEmpathy? - global vulnerabilityY

our

com

mand o

f nat.

haz

info

rmati

on

GEOG 312

Documents

Geography 312 (Natural Hazards) Instructor: Ian Hutchinson (RCB7226) ph: 778-782-3232 email: [email protected] Course email: [email protected] TAs: Elizabeth