摘要

自然灾害:进步空间大!

作者(年代):马塞勒斯米

在《地理与自然灾害》杂志上，我有机会读到大卫·亚历山大[1]的社论《灾难:教训?》在这篇社论中，作者认为“事件能够教会我们，如果我们注意到经验对我们说的话，经验是有价值的”。2011年5月22日晚，美国密苏里州乔普林市遭遇EF5级龙卷风，造成162人死亡。这次龙卷风事件是自1950年现代记录开始以来袭击美国的最致命的单一龙卷风。2011年乔普林龙卷风造成了大约30亿美元的保险损失，造成162人死亡，1000多人受伤，这是自1953年6月8日密歇根州弗林特龙卷风造成116人死亡以来，美国第一次造成100多人死亡的单一龙卷风。此外，这是自1971年以来袭击密苏里州乔普林的第三次龙卷风。因此，我们从以往的灾难中学到了什么，可以帮助决策者以及私人和公共应急管理机构改善龙卷风的准备和反应?正如David Alexander[1]在他的社论中所说，“有许多积极的发展”。例如，许多研究声称，如果龙卷风警报没有及时发布(或根本没有发布)，处于危险中的人群就无法寻求掩护，这可能会导致更多的伤亡。此外，在暴风雨中知道去哪里和获得警告一样重要。 However, people often ignore tornado warnings and do not take cover. So, if warning can save lives, why are people so careless? Well, we have learned that people often disregard warnings if such warnings have proven wrong in the past, or the “false alarm effect” as it is known in the hazard literature. We also have learned that tornado warnings are most effective when warnings are frequently repeated, confirmatory, and perceived as credible by the public. In fact, access to many sources of information bolsters individual response to tornado warnings. In this regard, studies have showed that certain individual and household characteristics also influence how the public responds to tornado warnings. The lack of access (or limited access) to warning sources means that poor and less educated persons may not take protective action because they do not receive a warning in the first place or do not receive confirmation of the warning. Moreover, a “safe room” within a house is an ideal shelter against an impending tornado. However, because safe rooms cost a considerable amount, the poor are again at a disadvantage. We also have found that the elderly, infirm, or disabled individuals tend to dismiss warnings in a cognitive process framed by situational factors like compromised mobility and difficulty in hearing tornado warnings. These people typically require additional time and/or assistance to get to the best available shelter. Also, researchers claim that people directly affected by disasters are significantly more responsive to future hazard predictions and warnings than those who have never been affected by a disaster. However, if the event occurred in the distant past, people may fail to comply with hazard warnings because memories of such events tend to fade over time. Evidently, the findings above have demonstrated that we have learned from past experiences. However, many of the findings are related to individuals or households characteristics and many questions still remain unanswered. For instance, how do we prepare to disasters? How can we reduce the impacts of tornado in society? How vulnerable is a community to disaster? How resilient is the community for recovery from a disaster, such as a tornado? Disaster-affected communities will require critical support to recover and vulnerable communities may take long to recover from a disaster. If we focus on the concept of resilience as the ability to adapt, and strengthen in the face of adversity, or the ability to return to original form, without doubts, Joplin is a good example of it. A year after the disaster the city created a recovery committee that endorsed a longterm recovery plan that will ensure that new constructions meet certain design standards, among other important tasks. But what makes this city more resilient than others that suffered similar natural disasters? Failure to understand the risk behavior and culture of communities can lead to the collapse of communities. The study of natural disasters is complex and it is of interest of students, scholars, and policy-makers. Not all natural disasters can be avoided but disasters can be mitigated. However, we need to focus on understanding what makes a city/community more resilient to disasters and take a leadership role in advocating strategies and tactics that promote it. There is much space for progress