Disasters: Between illusion and reality (Part2)
We started our discussion about disasters in the previous post, and based on the request of many readers, we decided to keep the discussion about disasters open for this post as well. In the previous post, we introduced an idea that is new for many people, which suggests that disasters are not natural, and disasters are more complex than just a natural hazard. We also explained how the impact of disasters has six major dimensions and we briefly introduced the nature of their interaction.
As we emphasized before, disasters have always been connected to their impact on human beings, and if a natural hazard doesn’t have any direct impact on humans, many social scientists disagree to call it a disaster. This brings me to one of the questions that we received from one of the readers after the first post; “If a natural hazard happens in the middle of the sea, or middle of a desert, and destroys whole ecosystems, shouldn’t we called that a disaster?”
When such hazards take place, it does not impact humans directly; however, we are part of one closed system with many elements that affect and being affected directly and indirectly by each other. If we add that idea to the word ‘Disaster’, I think our definition to the word will change again, keeping in mind that the point here is not to confuse our readers by keep changing the definition of disasters; on the contrary, we are trying to expand their perspective to the term.
Additionally, many of us disagree with the limitation of the use of the word ‘Disaster’ in this context, where it is always found to be connected to natural hazards. I believe it would enrich the term if we generalize the disturbance to include all life-threating conditions. If we take into consideration all the ideas mentioned earlier, the definition of disasters will evolve again to include any direct or indirect disturbance for any community, where the human core is being severely and negatively impacted on one (or more) of six major levels, political, economic, social, technological, legal, or environmental.
We discussed earlier that combining the word ‘Natural’ with ‘Disaster’ can be misleading; it simply suggests that disasters are act of God, Nature, or any other superior power, which means that humans are powerless in these circumstances. As we explained before, a disaster is more than a natural hazard, and it should be clear to many of us at this point that someone should take responsibility to what happens before, during and after a disaster takes place, including the recovery process, whether the recovery is physical or even psychological.
When we talk about recovery, it is crucial to introduce the word ‘Resilience’ in that context. Whatever sector or field you work at, for sure, you have used or at least heard the word ‘Resilience’ being used, and unfortunately, it is one of the words that many people use and don’t know what it means; for some people, it makes their sentences sound more sophisticated! And when people know what it means, most of the time they have different definitions for the same word.
The Oxford dictionary defines the word as “The capacity to recover quickly from difficulties”, but when the term is used in different fields, the definition evolves. For example, the term ‘Resilience’ in structural engineering is used to describe the structure’s yielding ability to lateral forces without reaching a structural failure point. Additionally, the term ‘Resilience’ in financial studies stands for the company’s ability to recover after an economic downturn. So as we can see, the term evolves to adapt to the context that is being used in. If we combine the two words, Disaster and Resilience, we will have a new definition that many researchers agree on “the ability of individuals and communities to adapt to and recover from hazards without compromising prospects for development in the long run”.
The term ‘Resilience’ is relatively new in modern science, but the concept has been seen in different terminologies across other fields of study, such as Progressive Elaboration, Agile or Agility, Roll-wave Planning, and many other terms were used to express the adapting ability to different forms of disturbance and having quick responses supported by a recovery plan.
Generally speaking, there is a growing consciousness when it comes to disasters and the importance of the adaptability and recovery process which is the foundation of resilient societies as well as individuals. However, if we take a look around us nowadays, especially with the acceleration of climate change due to global warming, we will find ourselves in a true battle with time.
At the end of this post, some questions must have found their way to the surface;
How resilient are we?
How much of a change do we need before the next coming catastrophe?
How many (Katarina)s do we have to survive to realize that change has to be done?
And after all the advances that we achieved as humans in all different fields, why disasters are being underestimated by the majority, even from the educated segment in our communities?
(We will be discussing these questions in the following posts)
