AGCI Session I: Natural Hazards and Global Change

Session Chairs: Louis Walter and E. L. Quarantelli - July 10 to 20, 1996

Dennis Mileti

On the current U. S. natural hazards paradigm

The current emphasis is on reducing disaster losses through directed actions to overcome nature. Natural hazards are viewed as extreme, low probability phenomena that have the potential to cause disasters when they strike human communities that have not done enough to keep harm away. The favored remedy is a built environment that has been sufficiently hardened to resist nature's extreme forces. Examples include steel frame construction thought to be resistant to structural collapse in earthquakes, shutters for windows thought to keep a hurricane's harm at bay, and flood control works perceived to be able to keep back excessive amounts of water.

A range of societal adjustments that fall under the headings of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery are also thought to help us conquer environmental extremes. The prevailing perspective ends up pitting such hazards reduction adjustments against other, often conflicting, powerful societal forces. These forces, which constrain a more effective natural hazard adjustment, include the decentralized character of the American system with its long list of involved actors, the low salience of natural hazards on most people's agendas until a disaster happens, the limited resources available for mitigation, and legal and economic constraints regarding restrictions on land use.

Another constraint in the contemporary natural hazards paradigm is our culture's infatuation with technological fixes for problems. Technology that is perceived to be an appropriate adjustment actually allows us to build, live and work where we want to despite the hazards to which our land is subject. For example, using technology to improve our ability to forecast disaster impacts and construct safer buildings could lull people into a false sense of security into thinking that the problem has been solved.

The nation's definition of appropriate loss reduction actions could be shifted such that we stop using mitigations with short-term payoffs that are not sustainable and actually create greater hazards in the long term. Engineered mitigations that exacerbate degradation and alter natural systems negatively could be abandoned. Land use planning for hazards mitigation could also enhance environmental stability and rehabilitation. Building codes could reduce future losses but also encourage energy efficiency and be in keeping with local environments.

The prevailing paradigm foretells increased frustration because we have the knowledge to guide effective societal adjustment to natural hazards and we are informed about the societal constraints that impede our action, but dollar losses continue to increase. A shift in perspective is needed that provides natural hazards mitigation with relief from many of the constraints that retard action. There is a need to design a hazards paradigm and loss mitigation strategies that serve both the manifest function of reducing losses, but which also increase the sustainability of interactions between humans and the natural environment .

Return to Text // Aspen Global Change Institute Homepage // Elements of Change 1996 Table of Contents // Comments & Questions: agcimail@agci.org