In 2015, the Productivity Commission reported that for every $100 spent on disaster management in Australia, only $3 is spent on disaster risk reduction. This contrasts with studies that estimate an average return on investment of 4:1 and, sometimes, up to 50:1 for each dollar spent on disaster risk reduction, depending on location and disaster type. Thus, the Commission lamented: “Governments overinvest in post-disaster reconstruction and underinvest in mitigation that would limit the impact of natural disasters in the first place” (p. 2).
· Why is this the case?
· How can changes be made?
· What actions might insurance companies take?
In a world where current issues are already enough to deal with, it is, perhaps, a stretch to also consider issues that are not yet actual. This problem brings to mind the Hydro-illogical cycle:
Figure 3: The Hydro-illogical Cycle. Source: National Drought Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
A certain level of apathy towards that which is not yet but might come to soon contribute towards disasters being cyclical rather than more of an issue that gets resolved or lessened through planned, ongoing disaster risk reduction through systematic design that combines design thinking and systems thinking – a crucial aspect of finding solutions to ‘wicked problems’.
Concepts such as BBB are helping turn recovery and reconstruction post-disaster turn into an opportunity to build resilience and invest in future mitigation measures such as adaptive building codes and design, education and awareness. However, these concepts of risk reduction for future disasters cannot be used exclusively in post-disaster scenarios. Oftentimes, post-disaster recovery and reconstruction processes are under immense time-related pressures that will sometimes lead to results being far from ideal. As Blakely advises in his 7-step framework, plans for potential disaster, economic potential, infrastructure renewal schemes and resources need to be designed, identified and planned for well before a disaster hits.
However, disaster preparedness is very much like paying for insurance. Paying for recovery is going directly towards that recovery, but money invested towards a potential disaster, might just go to ‘waste’ or be so far into the future that it’s considered just as well to put off until a later date or for someone else to deal with.
How can disaster preparedness benefit a country even if said disaster never hits? Disaster resilience needs to be incorporated into a holistic, sustainable development plan that will build resilience, wealth and increase livelihoods no matter the situation. Working towards understanding and adapting to our environment will benefit us no matter what. That being said, the ‘economic’ (so to speak) value of the environment and an attitude that considers a reciprocal relationship with nature is still a budding concept in the western modes of thinking. Due to climate change and the increasing potential for disaster all over the world, we are nothing but forced to face the reality that we cannot control nature, we can only work with it.
As the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework states, “Governments and industry in particular must take coordinated action to reduce disaster risks within their control to limit adverse impacts on communities.” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2018, pp. 4) National plans, policies, building codes, development and economic plans all fall at higher levels of policy design and implementation. However, it also is heavily influenced by bottom-up approaches that communities and individuals can take. It is true that “while individuals and communities have their roles to play, they do not control many of the levers needed to reduce some disaster risks” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2018, pp. 4), individuals in their respective businesses, organisations and universities can all together have a significant influence on projects that deal with the built and unbuilt, social and economic environment.
References
Commonwealth of Australia (2018). National Disaster Reduction Framework.
Commenti