Beth
I would like to know what data you are basing the "increased" costs on. I
suspect that disaster losses have always been higher than oficial estimates -
given that these estimates are often based on insured property lsses - and
many people do not take out insurance.
Other factors in this issue are:
inflation of propery values over time
increased population numbers (there more property to be affected - this is
linked to population density issues also)
better means of assessing losses (and perhaps including increased political
and social commitment to assess losses)
in addition, improved structural works do not necesarily correlate with
increased safety or potential loss reduction. People may feel falsely
confident and move into hazard prone areas because they place faith in
structural works.
Also we live in a dynamica environment and we would therefor not expect any
environmental factor ( and therefore any exposure to hazards) to remain
constant.
Another issue - and this is related to the 3rd world particularly - is that
monetary value loss is not necesarily the principal indicator of significance.
Death and injury are also important. And we also ned to consider the relative
value of the goods to the people affected. So the total value of a family's
home in the 3rd world (or even in Britain) may be less than that of a car (at
least a Rols Royce or a Lamborghini!) but the loss of the home would be much
greater in human terms (and political and social terms )than the loss of the
car.
I think you need to consider what we measure to determine losses, what used to
be measured, and what data is used.
philip buckle
>===== Original Message From This is a multidisciplinary discussion group on
natural hazards and disaste
<[log in to unmask]> =====
>Hi there everyone
>
>I'm a second year student at Southampton university in the
>UK studying Geography. As part of my course we are looking
>at why, despite massive investment in hazard defence, the
>cost of death and damage from hazards continues to rise in
>the UK and worldwide? I think this is a really interesting
>point and I'm wondering if you have any possible
>explanations or ideas.
>
>Many thanks,
>
>Beth Archer
>Southampton, UK
>
>----------------------
>Beth
>[log in to unmask]
|