Is the Impact of Storm Hazards Influenced by the Level of Development of the Place Affected? - Akshaya

How severe and widespread the impacts of storm hazards are often influenced by the wealth of a country, the management procedures they have in place, as well as the region’s infrastructure. All these factors affect both the short and long-term impacts, as well as the scale of the hazard effects. Past hazards have indicated that storm hazards are highly damaging to both LICs and HICs, with Hurricane Katrina in the USA and Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines both having a huge number of fatalities. The development of a place often allows the impacts to be mitigated to an extent, however, the magnitude of the storm hazard itself is still impossible for humans to control.

The wealth of the US allowing it to recover well and mitigate the impacts of storm hazards is apparent with hurricane Irma. Despite Irma being the fifth costliest hurricane to hit the mainland of the US, with $50 billion worth of damage, there were no major long-term impacts. There were also no fatalities, as 6.5 million people were evacuated, 700 emergency shelters were open throughout Florida, and multiple websites were giving information as to what supplies are needed and what needs to be done during the storm. This highlights significant expenditure on sufficient preparation and an efficient response resulting in casualties being prevented, as well as any major impacts at all; there is likely to be a relatively short recovery period in the Parks model, with there possibly being improvement beyond normality.  This indicates that more developed countries, such as the USA, experience less severe social and environmental impacts due to their wealth allowing them to manage storm hazards effectively. But the economic impacts on the country could still result in severe impacts due to less public spending on the welfare state reducing people’s quality of life, and so on.

However, despite the Philippines being an LIC, there was still a sufficient response to typhoon Haiyan due to the substantial aid they received from multiple organisations and governments. The United Nations launched an international aid appeal in December 2013 for £480 million to finance the humanitarian relief effort for 2014. Furthermore, the UK government’s humanitarian relief effort included food, shelter, clean water, medicine and other supplies for up to 800,000 victims. The availability of international aid enables LICs to respond effectively to storm hazards in order to mitigate the effects after the storm. Therefore, the level of development of an area may not greatly affect how great the impact storm hazards have on it, especially the long-term impacts. On the other hand, being reliant upon external aid can be problematic and can lead to stagnated development.

The short-term impacts are likely to be more severe in LICs due to the lack of wealth preventing the sufficient storm management infrastructure and procedures from being in place initially. This is evident with the high death toll for typhoon Haiyan of over 6000. The warning systems in places were ineffective, the supposedly ‘storm-proof’ shelters were destroyed, and the evacuations were poorly organised and not enforced. Many people also ignored the warnings that were received, due to being uneducated on the extent of the danger they were in. The country’s lack of funding and initiative to educate the population on how to react during a storm, to prepare and to implement efficient management procedures ultimately led to the disastrous impacts of the storm. Thus, the Philippines’ lack of development led it to experience much more severe effects than it would if the country was wealthier and more educated on how destructive Haiyan was and how they should act.

However, the factor that influences the impact of storm hazards the most is arguably the severity of the storm itself, specifically as that is a factor that cannot be controlled. When a storm is of a high enough category, the effects are disastrous, regardless of how developed the area. This is apparent with hurricane Katrina, where a category 5 hurricane resulted in 1833 deaths, thousands of homes and businesses being destroyed, and 3 million people being left without electricity for several weeks. Despite there being levees and floodwalls in place, they were not sufficient for the magnitude of the storm, resulting in some being breached. New Orleans was also particularly vulnerable due to its physical factors of being low lying, with most of the city being 6 feet below the sea level of the gulf, as well as having the Mississippi river running through it. Therefore, the impact of storm hazards is not influenced much by the development of the area, but rather the physical characteristics of the area, and especially the magnitude of the storm itself. It is worth considering that New Orleans can be considered a less developed area in terms of socioeconomic status of those living there, with a poverty rate of around 28% prior to the hurricane, despite being in a HIC. Despite this, New Orleans was able to recover from hurricane Katrina to an extent, with poverty, violent crime and social inequalities still existing, but there has not been a significant increase between now and prior Katrina.

In conclusion, the development of the area does influence the impacts of storm hazards, with evacuations and greater education often reducing the death toll and greater storm management infrastructure mitigating damages. However, this has much less influence than the magnitude of the storm itself, as higher category storms have devastating affects regardless of the management and preparation that occurs, which is apparent with hurricane Katrina. But, with New Orleans being a relatively less developed area within a HIC, the ambiguity of the term ‘level of development’ is highlighted, as this is a very subjective term that encompasses many factors, and how the term is defined would influence the conclusion that is drawn.