Dear All,
Some thoughts on this interesting thread:
1. If a physical event it does not have a negative impact on people it is
hard to call it a disaster. To paraphrase the maxim in Geography: No
people, no problem.
2. On the big disaster/small disaster issue one also needs to consider the
role played by media, as the source of information about disasters and an
opinion shaper are to what are disasters. This is not to suggest that the
media intentionally manipulates the flow of information to one end or
another (such as ignoring less developed countries). It is just that small
(i.e. local) disasters have most only local interest. Most people living in
LA are not be interested in forest fires in Sumatra since they have little
direct impact on their daily lives. (Whether they *should be* is another
question.) They are interested in fires in Hollywood.
Thus, if you want to know about local disasters you need to extend the data
collection process to the local level. At present, most information on
disasters comes from "international" sources which, as a matter of routine,
filter out the news seen to be of only of local interest.
The solution to knowing more about disasters and their impacts involves an
expansion of local sources rather than a further conglomeration of
macro-level data bases and data sources. In other words: gotta go local to
get in the know!
Regards,
C. Kelly
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|