May be assessed on a
monetary cost benefit basis- i.e. cost of implementing strategies
against savings and other benefits. The cost may be assessed in
terms of the probability of the hazard event occurring again over a
particular period of time and its likely severity. For example, the
cost of insurance may be more than the assessment of the damage
likely to be caused. Again, for example, it may be considered
cheaper to exclude people and human activities from certain
vulnerable areas than to implement strategies to reduce a hazard
impact in that area. But whilst strategies concerned with the likely
material losses resulting from a hazard impact may be assessed on a
monetary cost/benefit basis, the same monetary assessment cannot be
made where human lives are at risk - moral considerations have to be
taken into account.
Strategies may be
evaluated on the basis of the extent to which these can be adjudged
to meet the needs in terms of –
1. Reduction in vulnerability to the hazard event.
2. Strengths and weaknesses of the emergency measures in
place in the event of the hazard occurring.
3. Immediate reconstruction measures and restoration of
basic services.
4. Strategies in place to ensure long-term reduction of the impact of
an event.
What are the 'yardsticks' by which the strategies may
be evaluated?
1. Balance of coverage of the different stages –
prevention, immediate emergency measures, reconstruction and restoration
of services, long-term measures.
2. Evaluation on the basis of the finances and human
resources available to the agencies involved in the formulation and
implementation of strategies at community/local, regional, national and
in some cases international level.
3. On the basis of advances in strategy policies and
implementation of them compared to those in place prior to the last
hazard event.
4. By comparison with strategies in place elsewhere to
meet a similar hazard event e.g. comparison on an area-to-area basis or
on a wider scale - strategies in lesser-developed countries may be
relatively weak when compared to those implemented in developed
countries.
5. Effectiveness on the evidence of how well strategies
in place reduced the impact of an actual event.
Bangladesh (LEDC) Cyclone management
strategies
In May 1997 a cyclone warning in
the Cox's Bazaar area resulted in the evacuation of 300,000 people. The
death toll was 95 which showed progress had been made in public
education and warning systems.
Source: Bishop
How well did the
strategies in place after the 1991 help to mitigate the effects of
Cyclone Sidr?
The Affected Area
Cyclone Sidr slammed the
highly vulnerable low lying densely populated coastal
areas of Bangladesh with heavy rain, winds of up to
120 miles/hr, and a storm surge. Sidr may be the
strongest cyclone to hit the country since
a cyclone killed over 143,000 Bangladeshis in 1991.
Although, the death toll from Sidr numbers in the
hundreds but damage to homes, crops and livelihoods
could be extensive. Under a Cyclone Preparedness
Program, volunteers evacuated at least 600,000
Bangladeshis in the path of the storm. Many are housed
in 1,800 multipurpose disaster shelters built along the
coast. Relief organizations distributed seven-day
emergency disaster kits of food, blankets and clothing
for evacuated families.
Since 1991, the donor
community, including the US and EC, has supported
disaster-preparedness to mitigate the impact of tropical
storms and improve post-disaster relief and
reconstruction. Cyclone walls planted within trees are
in place to protect vulnerable areas from storm surges.
Disaster shelters on stilts housing refugees plus early
warning systems and timely evacuations appear to have
greatly reduced the fatalities from Sidr. It did kill
3,447 people, but this was much less than the 140,000
that died in 1991.
National response
After the storm, 18 Bangladesh Air Force helicopters and five Bangladesh
Navy ships were immediately dispatched with food, medicine, and relief
supplies for the hardest-hit areas.Bangladesh Red Crescent Society
initially asked 400 million Taka (US$5,807,594) to the international
community.As part of the Bangladeshi cricket team's tour in New Zealand,
a charity Twenty20 match was held with all funds raised going to the
victims. In addition, the International Cricket Council donated
US$250,000 to the funds at the start of the match. The Ministry of Food
and Disaster Management allocated 4,000 metric tonnes of rice, 7,500
tents, 18,000 blankets, and 30 million Taka (US$435,569) in relief
grants. About 13,000 housing packages, consisting of iron sheets for
roofing and family kits were prepared for immediate distribution. A
special 350 million Taka (US$5,081,645) fund for housing was established
by November 22, 2007. At that time, 732 medical teams were deployed to
the affected areas.
International Response: Just some of
the international response is listed below-
Funding $US
Switzerland
emergency assistance
1200000
UK
Foods, water,
medicine
163000
USA
Shelter, water,
sanitation, medicine, hygiene, US Military Aid mission- formed
by USS Tarawa, USS Kearsarge and stayed 1 month in cyclone
affected area.
3159353
Post-storm diseases
People of the cyclone affected area experienced severe health problems
such as diseases like diarrhea, which spread due to shortage of drinking
water.[40] The landfall of Sidr had followed the devastation caused by
consecutive floods earlier in 2007.[41] By January 15, 2008, the World
Health Organization (WHO) reported that 44 people had Jaundice, 3,572
had Diarrhoea, 3,210 had Pneumonia, 7,538 were suffering from a skin
disease, 2,309 had eye infections, and 10,349 had Typhoid Fever. To help
reduce further spreading of the diseases, the Government of Norway
provided the WHO with four water treatment plants to be used in areas
affected by Sidr
Assessment of the US hurricane hazard
management policy.
1. Balance of coverage of the different stages –
prevention, immediate emergency measures, reconstruction and restoration
of services, long-term measures.
Has the US learnt the harsh
lessons of New Orleans? Failure to prevent and
chaotic slow initial response at all levels of government including
presidential.
The ramifications of
the bungled response to Katrina are still felt two years later in the
US, both politically and by the people living in New Orleans and the
Gulf Coast.
It has quickly become clear that the White House
has no intention of letting events unravel in a similarly chaotic - and
public - fashion in California.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and
David Paulison, head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema),
are already on the scene.
"What we see now that we did not see during
Hurricane Katrina is a very good team effort from the local, the state
and the federal government and across the federal agencies," Mr Paulison
said.
President George W Bush wants to "witness
first-hand" the situation and is due to visit on Thursday, as well as
swiftly pledging federal aid to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
After Katrina, he was widely criticised for merely
flying over the hurricane-affected areas two days later on his way back
from his holiday in Texas to Washington DC.
Assess the effectiveness of
strategies used to manage the effects of hazards associated with low
pressure. (1.6)
[25] Sample Assessment Papers 2009
Candidates should:
(i) show a knowledge of the damaging effects of the
hazards associated with low pressure;
(ii) show an understanding of the strategies employed to
manage the effects;
(iii) give an assessment of the effectiveness of the
above strategies.
Candidates need to refer to the effects of hazards
associated with low pressure (cyclonic) situations. The effects
discussed are likely to be both environmental and human (demographic,
economic and social).
When discussing the measures taken to reduce the impacts
of hazards associated with low pressure systems (hurricanes and
tornadoes in tropical climates) (storms in temperate climates),
candidates may present logically sequenced points progressing from
monitoring, prediction and warning, immediate response to lessen the
impact once it has occurred to long-term planning.
Candidates need to assess the effectiveness of the
measures discussed. Measures may be evaluated on the basis of the extent
to which they reduce the impact of an event, by comparison with
strategies in place elsewhere to meet a similar hazard event, on the
basis of advances in strategy policies and implementation of them
compared to those in place prior to the last hazard event or an
evaluation on the basis of the finances and human resources available to
the agencies involved in the formulation and implementation of measures
at a local, regional, national or international level. Where there is
limited evaluative comment, the answer is unlikely to reach 'good'
and to reach 'very good' a well-balanced answer with some
depth of discussion is needed.
