STRATEGIES FOR BECOMING DISASTER RESILIENT DURING
Download
Report
Transcript STRATEGIES FOR BECOMING DISASTER RESILIENT DURING
STRATEGIES FOR BECOMING
DISASTER RESILIENT
DURING 2013
Walter Hays, Global Alliance for
Disaster Reduction, Vienna,
Virginia, USA
PART 3: MAKE THE
MEGACITIES MORE
DISASTER RESILIENT
MEGACITIES FACE HUGE
DISASTERS FROM …
• EARTHQUAKES
• FLOODS
• SEVERE
WINDSTORMS
• LANDSLIDES
• VOLCANIC
ERUPTIONS
• WILDFIRES
• TSUNAMIS
• DROUGHTS
WHAT HISTORY TEACHES
• CITIES AND
MEGACITIES EXIST
BY GEOLOGIC,
HYDROLOGIC, AND
ATMOSPHERIC
CONSENT, WHICH
CAN BE
WITHDRAWN
WITHOUT NOTICE.
A DISASTER OCCURS WHEN
THE MEGACITY’S PUBLIC
POLICIES ALLOW IT TO BE …
UN—PREPARED
UN—PROTECTED
UN--WARNED
UN—ABLE TO RESPOND EFFECTIVELY
UN (NON)—RESILIENT IN RECOVERY
QUESTION
• WHAT IS A MEGACITY AND WHAT
VULNERABILITY REDUCTION
MEASURES WILL MAKE IT LESS
VULNERABLE TO THE POTENTIAL
DISASTER AGENTS OF A
NATURAL HAZARD?
MEGACITIES IN 1900
WORLD POPULATION:
1.6 BILLION
•
•
•
•
•
TOKYO: 21.9 M
NEW YORK: 15.6 M
MEXICO CITY: 13.9 M
SAO PAULO: 12.5 M
SHANGHAI: 11.7
•
•
•
•
•
•
OSAKA: 10.0 M
BUENOS AIRES: 9.9 M
LOS ANGELES: 9.5 M
CALCUTA 9.0 M
BEIJING 9.0 M
SOURCE: THE
POPULATION
INSTITUTE 2/3/01
MEGACITIES IN 2000
WORLD POPULATION:
6 BILLION
•
•
•
•
•
TOKYO: 25.4 M
BOMBAY: 18.6 M
MEXICO CITY: 18.3 M
SAO PAULO: 18.0 M
NEW YORK: 16.7 M
•
•
•
•
•
LAGOS: 14.1 M
CALCUTA 13.2 M
LOS ANGELES: 13.2 M
SHANGHAI: 13.0 M
BUENOS AIRES: 12.7
M
• SOURCE: THE
POPULATION
INSTITUTE 2/3/01
MEGACITIES IN 2020
WORLD POPULATION:
10 BILLION
•
•
•
•
•
BOMBAY: 28.5 M
TOKYO: 27.3 M
LAGOS: 26.5 M
DHAKA: 24.0 M
KARACHI: 21.7 M
•
•
•
•
•
•
SAO PAULO: 21.3 M
MEXICO CITY: 19.6 M
JAKARTA: 19.4
CALCUTA 18.8 M
NEW DEHLI: 18:4 M
SOURCE: THE
POPULATION
INSTITUTE 2/3/01
TOKYO IS A MEGACITY AT RISK
FROM NATURAL HAZARDS
CAIRO IS A MEGACITY AT RISK
FROM NATURAL HAZARDS
ISTHANBUL IS A MEGACITY AT
RISK FROM NATURAL HAZARDS
ISTHANBUL: CAUSES OF
VULNERABILITIES
• SIZE
• FRAGILITY OF
EXISTING BUIDINGS/
INFRASTRUCTURE
• INADEQUATE
PROTECTION
MEASURES
• CONSTRUCTION
MATERIALS AND
PRACTICES
SAN FRANCISCO: DEPENDENT
ON TRANSPORTATION
• DAMAGE TO ONE
SPAN OF THE BAY
BRIDGE IN 1989
CHANGED THE LIVES
OF MILLIONS AND
DISRUPTED MANY
BUSINESSES.
• NO ONE KNOWS THE
TRUE COST.
LOS ANGELES: DEPENDENT ON
UTILITY SYSTEMS
• DAMAGE TO A
UTILIYY CORRIDOR
CAUSED
WIDESPREAD
OUTAGES OF POWER,
GAS, WATER, AND
WASTE CENTERS.
• OUTAGES LED TO
LOSSES IN THE
BILLIONS.
SAN FRANCISCO: SUSCEPTIBLE
TO FIRE
RISK ASSESSMENT
•NAT. HAZARDS
•INVENTORY
•VULNERABILITY
•LOCATION
ACCEPTABLE RISK
RISK
UNACCEPTABLE RISK
VULNERABILITY
REDUCTON
DATA BASES
AND INFORMATION
MEGACITY
DISASTER
RESILIENCE
HAZARDS:
GROUND SHAKING
GROUND FAILURE
SURFACE FAULTING
TECTONIC DEFORMATION
TSUNAMI RUN UP
AFTERSHOCKS
•PREPAREDNESS
•PRPTECTION
•EARLY WARNING
•EMERGENCY RESPONSE
•RECOVERY
•EDUCATIONAL SURGES
QUESTION
• CAN WE MAKE
MEGACITIES MORE
RESILIENT TO
NATURAL HAZARDS?
YES
BUT, IT IS A TIME-, PEOPLE-,,
AND STAPLE- DEPENDENT
PROCESS!
INTERLOCKING CONCEPTS ON
MEGACITIES AND NATURAL HAZARDS
• NATURAL HAZARDS,
GENERATE POTENTIAL
DISASTER AGENTS
WHICH CREATE RISK
TO THE BUILT
ENVIRONMENT.
• THE CHOICE: LIVE
WITH UNACCEPTABLE
RISK OR ACCEPTABLE
LEVELS OF RISK.
INTERLOCKING CONCEPTS ON
MEGACITIES AND NATURAL HAZARDS
• UNACCEPTABLE
RISK CALLS FOR
PUBLIC POLICIES
TO REDUCE
VULNERABILITIES.
INTERLOCKING CONCEPTS ON
MEGACITIES AND NATURAL HAZARDS
• VULNERABILITIES
REFLECT POLICY
FLAWS WITH
RESPECT TO
PREPAREDNESS,
PROTECTION, EARLY
WARNING,
EMERGENCY
RESPONSE, AND
RECOVERY
INTERLOCKING CONCEPTS ON
MEGACITIES AND NATURAL HAZARDS
• PREPAREDNESS,
PROTECTION,
RESPONSE, AND
RECOVERY ARE THE
MOST EFFECTIVE
MEASURES.
• BUT, THEY ARE HARD
TO SELL TO THE
PUBLIC AND TAKE
TIME TO IMPLEMENT.
MEGACITY DISASTER RESILIENCE
WHAT’S NEEDED: A COMMON AGENDA
(CA) OF TECHNICAL
AND POLITICAL SOLUTIONS
POLITICAL
SOLUTIONS
TECHNICAL
SOLUTIONS
CA
THE EFFECTIVE SOLUTION FOR
GREATER DISASTER RESILIENCE
FACT: BUILD ON EACH MEGACITY’S
UNIQUE STAPLE FACTORS
POLITICAL
SOLUTIONS
TECHNICAL
SOLUTIONS
CA
STAPLE
FACTORS
S
O
P
T
A COMMUNITY’S STAPLE
FACTORS ARE UNIQUE
•
•
•
•
•
•
SOCIAL
TECHNICAL
ADMINISTRATIVE
POLITICAL
LEGAL
ECONOMIC