Natural Disasters and the Risk of Disease Epidemics

Following a natural disaster, the impacts can often be long-lasting, owing to damaged infrastructure, loss of agricultural land, businesses, and so on. A key concern also includes the sudden risk of disease epidemics, as vulnerability to disease increases after a disaster. Interestingly, vulnerability to natural hazards can also be exacerbated by disease - as well as other variables such poverty, conflict and population displacement (Basher, 2006). Developing countries are disproportionally affected as they lack resources, infrastructure, and disaster-preparedness systems (Watson et al., 2007).

The type of diseases that a natural disaster can exacerbate vary. After the 2004 Bangladeshi floods, contaminated drinking water caused the outbreak of diarrhoeal disease, found in over 17,000 cases (Watson et al., 2007). A large cholera epidemic (over 16,000 cases) was also noted in West Bengal in 1998 which was attributed to the preceding floods (Sur et al., 2000). Diseases such as tetanus and clusters of measles had spread following the 2005 Pakistan earthquake - particularly when routine vaccination coverage levels were low.

Pakistan earthquake 2005. Source

A common misconception is that diseases following a natural disaster are mostly spread from dead bodies, and thus this can lead to inappropriate burial of the dead without proper identification (Morgan, 2004). The most dangerous conditions are when dead bodies have contaminated water supplies; gastroenteritis being the most notable problem as corpses will commonly leak feaces - although communities will rarely use a water supply is they know it to be contaminated. Watson et al. (2007) argue that dead bodies can pose a serious health risk in a few situations that require specific precautions, such as deaths from cholera or hemorrhagic fevers. However (Morgan, 2004) contests this, stating that the causative agents in infections such as typhoid and cholera are unable to survive long in the human body following death, and therefore dead bodies pose little risk.

Rather, the main initiator of disease is reported to be displacement of a population following a natural disaster. This is due to overcrowding, limited water and sanitation supplies, and poor medical facilities which increase the risk of communicable disease transmission. The risk of outbreaks is associated with the size, health status and living conditions of the population displaced by the natural disaster.

Meterological events such as hurricanes, cyclones and flooding can affect vector breeding sites and vector-borne disease transmission (WHO, 2006). Standing water which is a result of heavy rainfall or overflow of rivers can create new breeding sites for mosquitoes. In a displaced population, there is an overcrowding of susceptible hosts coupled with a weakened health infrastructure and interruptions of ongoing disease control programmes, which contribute as risk factors for vector-borne disease transmission. Changing of habitats resulting from landslide deforestation, river damming and re-routing can also contribute to mosquito breeding.

As global environmental change is likely to exacerbate vulnerability to vector-borne diseases (e.g. malaria and cholera), it is important for disaster mitigation strategies to acknowledge the potential increase in secondary impacts such as disease epidemics resulting from hazards. Perhaps a most suitable solution, following this research, is to carry out effective strategies to avoid overcrowding when a population is displaced, and to provide more immediate substitute water and sanitation supplies to the effected population. What do you think is a suitable strategy to deal with disease outbreaks?

Re-meandering and Rewilding River Systems: An Effective Flood Management Strategy in the UK?

   Storm Desmond was an extratropical cyclone; so far has the fourth named storm of the 2015-16 UK and Ireland windstorm season. Desmond was notable for directing a plume of moist air, known as an atmospheric river, which brought record amounts of orographic rainfall to uplands areas of northern Atlantic Europe and subsequent major floods. The worst affected areas in the UK were centered on Cumbria, Lancashire and the Scottish borders, with severe rain and flooding also reported in Northumberland, north Wales and Yorkshire. The storm broke the UK's 24-hour rainfall record, with 341.4 mm of rain falling in Honister Pass, Cumbria on the 5th of December (Met Office, 2015). As a consequence, 43,000 homes across the north of England were left without power, 3 people died and the damage cost £400-500 million. The damage was not solely confined to human impacts, however - ecology was also greatly harmed. For example, this somewhat flippant article from The Metro about a ‘sad otter’ does actually demonstrate that flooding can be a very hazardous time for young otters; they can easily be washed out of their holts by high rivers, and at that age are not accomplished swimmers.

River Eden burst its banks in Appleby due to Storm Desmond. Source

   On Tuesday 8th December, on the Today Programme on Radio 4, George Monbiot - an environmentalist - and Meurig Raymond - the President of the National Farmers Union - engaged in a debate over the impacts and possible causes of Storm Desmond flooding in the North of England. I thought this debate very fitting to my blog, it distinctly fits in well with my previous blogpost on Storm Abigail. With extreme weather events set to increase with climate change, it is vital that we look at ways to mitigate flooding effectively, particularly with the devastating impacts flooding has on urban areas. You can get the podcast of this debate here, at 2:48:00 into the episode.

   George Monbiot is an accomplished writer, known for his environmental and political activism, and weekly column in The Guardian. In this debate, he first began by outlining the issue with current flood mitigation strategies: instead of preventing the flood from happening, we wait and act after it has hit. We should, he argued, use soft engineering approaches as a flood prevention strategy, such as reforesting bare hills and rewilding river systems. This is for a number of reasons - by reforesting hills, the percolation rate into the soil will increase and therefore water is released more slowly. Additionally, by rewilding rivers and allowing them to meander, to form islands and banks of gravel and shingle, the river system will become more dynamic, and the flow of water will be held back.

   The processes of channelisation and river dredging were described by Monbiot as turning rivers into ‘straight drains’, whereby water bypasses farmland, but subsequently then rushes into the nearest settlement. Furthermore, bare hilltops produced from pastoral grazing has meant that too much water cascades down hillslopes that rivers are unable to contain; either water is allowed to spread over agricultural land, or it is sped past farmland through dredging and channel clearing, whereupon it comes down to the nearest ‘urban pinchpoint’ - such as a bridge. The resulting impact is the flooding of homes and the threatening of lives. To illustrate his point, Monbiot drew upon the example of the River Liza in the Lake District, where rewilding strategies meant that even after the last massive rainfall in 2009, the river was still running clear as all other rivers in the surrounding areas were bursting their banks.

Meandering River Liza in Ennerdale. Source

   In contrast, Meurig Raymond stance on flood management differed greatly, advocating hard engineering techniques. He argued that the flooding impacts from Storm Desmond resulted from too little investment in river dredging, channel clearing and flood defences - and that there should be more money set aside for maintenance of rivers to keep channels clear. One of his main defences of hilltop farming was that it attracted tourists into north, due to farming practices shaping the tapestry of land in an aesthetically pleasing manner. Sheep farming, food production, and agriculture, he argued, are vital to maintain wealth created by the tourism industry. Interestingly, and rather unexpectedly, Raymond stated that livestock numbers are now falling, and vegetation is increasing overall, with undergrazing now causing a larger problem than overgrazing. Therefore, water is being held back by the current fabric of the countryside. He rounded off the debate by stressing the importance of agriculture - as both a creator of top quality beef and lamb, but also as a generator of wealth.

Bare hills in Cumbria due to hilltop farming. Source

  The majority of the public listening to the debate seemed to concur with Monbiot’s opinion - that rewilding river systems can prevent flooding (shown through the handle @BBCr4today on Twitter). However, farmers have expressed anger at Monbiot’s seemingly ‘anti-farming’ rhetoric, expressed in his various articles and interviews, and argue that he has little knowledge of hilltop farming practices. Personally, I agree with Monbiot; I think rewilding river systems would be an incredibly beneficial mitigation strategy to control flooding. What do you think - is rewilding a viable solution, or has land-use changed so much that it is near impossible to go back to such an environment?

Japan Case Study Part 2: How The Tohoku and Fukushima Disaster Changed Public Opinion on Nuclear Power as a Low Carbon Energy Source

When I first visited Japan on a 3 month travelling trip, it was one and a half years after the magnitude 9 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami that hit northern Honshu in 2011. I had met some people in youth hostels there who were international students studying in Sendai temporarily, who still described Sendai as a 'complete wreck' from the disaster. Having just come from Tokyo, the stark difference in damage between the two regions was palpable, and contamination from the Fukushima nuclear disaster was still being reported worldwide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The Tohoku earthquake struck offshore of Japan, along a subduction zone where two of Earth’s tectonic plates collide, with the tremor releasing centuries of build up stress between the Pacific and the Eurasian plates. The fault contained a slippery clay layer which lined the fault, which researchers believed to have allowed the two plates to slide an enormous distance of around 50 meters. The earthquake began on the 11th March, at 2.46pm local time, and lasted approximately six minutes. The epicenter was centered on the seafloor 45 miles east of Tohoku, at a depth of 15 miles.

  The earthquake caused a confirmed death toll of 15,893 as of the 10th November 2015, according to Japan’s National Police Agency. The majority of deaths were caused by drowning from the destructive tsunami waves that reached heights of up to 39 meters. Many of Japan’s coastal flood defences were decimated from the impact.

  Perhaps one of the most devastating impacts from the tsunami was the resulting ‘nuclear meltdown’ in Fukushima, which caused a cooling system failure at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and the subsequent release of radioactive materials. The tsunami, which reached 13 meters tall in this area, completely overwhelmed the 10 meter sea wall put in place to protect the plant. Trace amounts of radioactivity, including iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137 were widely observed, causing the worst nuclear accident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. In July 2013, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) admitted that around 300 tonnes of radioactive water continued to leak from the plant everyday into the Pacific Ocean.

A fire at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant resulting from the tsunami. Source

  Unsurprisingly, the Tohoku disaster completely changed public opinion on nuclear power, both nationwide and internationally. The Fukushima disaster came at a time of global resurgence in nuclear energy facility development, with an estimated 360 gigawatts of additional nuclear generating capacity projected to be developed worldwide by 2035, on top of the 390 gigawatts already in use (IEA, 2010). The renewed interest in nuclear energy is in part due to its potential as a low carbon energy source, but also due to concerns about energy security as demand for energy is growing worldwide (Butler et al., 2011). In the case of Japan, government adopted policies aimed at improving energy efficiency and reducing the demand for oil by harnessing nuclear power, resulted in Japan becoming the most energy-efficient country in the world (The Economist, 2011). However, since the disaster, Japan has dropped to number six (Young et al., 2014). This is due to dwindling public support and policy changes on the use of nuclear power after Fukushima (Vivoda, 2011), with Japan increasing consumption of fossil fuels to make up for the loss of nuclear power.

While the full extent of the events at Fukushima were still rippling through global energy policy discourses, there was seen to be a deeper understanding of the risk of nuclear power, and a withdrawal of policy support particularly in Japan. There were also clear implications of the accident on government spending: the expenditure for compensation alone was estimated to be $124 billion (McCurry, 2011). Subsequently, significant proportions of the public in Japan and in other countries withdrew their support for nuclear power, shown in Figure 2. Similarly, Visschers and Siegrist’s (2012) paper on acceptance of nuclear power showed that in Switzerland, acceptance, perceptions and trust of nuclear power significantly decreased after the Fukushima accident.

Figure 2: Respondents who opposed nuclear energy to produce electricity either: a. previously to the Fukushima disaster; or b. recently due to the disaster in 2011. Poll conducted in April 2011. Source

Although the Fukushima disaster may have killed much of the momentum that nuclear power had gained, many still argue that nuclear power is a safe energy alternative and that the disaster resulted from insufficient safety regulations in Japan - which apparently does not exist in the USA (Stoutenborough et al., 2013). Similarly, in the UK, policymakers remained firm on their decision to increase nuclear power generation in the near future (Wittneben, 2012), which may have stemmed from limited media coverage due to the deployment of UK ground troops into Libya soon after. 

Overall, the truth remains that nuclear power offers a viable low carbon solution to feed the world's growing energy needs. At COP21, experts warned that renewable energy offers 'too little too late', and that policy makers should embrace nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels. Has the world already forgotten the tragedy of the Fukushima disaster - or have advances in nuclear power regulations made its use more safe? With environmental change set to increase the frequency of natural disasters, are we at risk of another serious nuclear contamination? Let me know what you think!

Japan Case Study Part 1: hazards, risks, vulnerability and mitigation

Hi everyone! Sorry for the delay in posting ! This post is going to give a very brief introduction to natural hazards in Japan, and will also mention a couple of mitigation methods the Japanese government is implementing/planning to implement. Any comments greatly appreciated :)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Japan is a country comprised of a series of islands in the western Pacific Ocean, and is an example of an arc-trench system, situated in a subduction zone between the margins of 4 tectonic plates: the North American, Eurasian, Philippine and Pacific plates (GLGArcs, n/a). Many of the islands are volcanic (the largest island being Honshu - home to Tokyo, Kyoto and Hiroshima) and are therefore characterised by a multitude of natural hazards. These include earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, mass movement and typhoons.

   In contrast to Ladakh, which is a low-income region, Japan has a GDP per capita of £25,362 and is currently the 3rd largest economy in the world. There is a huge difference in adaptability and mitigation between Ladakh and Japan, Japan has some of the most complex and expensive disaster mitigation management - although this is unequal between different regions.

Tectonic plates margins in Asia. Source

   Tokyo has been listed as the top city most at risk of natural hazards in the world, with the amount of vulnerable people in the Tokyo-Yokohama exceeding over 57 million (USA Today, 2013). However, Tokyo, due to its high wealth and capital manages to mitigate many of the hazards effectively. For example, in part of the response to the Tohoku earthquake in 2011, a 10 year project to promote earthquake-resistant joints was undertaken, whereby the replacement of 5,000 km in length of existing joints would be replaced by earthquake resistant ones. So far, the share of earthquake resistant joints has exceeded 35% (Mochizuki, 2015).

   Additionally, Tokyo has implemented an emergency water supply system, tested for quality each year, which would be able to supply the whole population of Tokyo should a natural hazard strike (Waterworks, 2012). In total, there are approximately 203 emergency supply bases across Tokyo (Mochizuki, 2015). These sources are reliant on community participation, with Tokyo Waterworks implementing training with local residents at each supply base. It provides a stark contrast to Ladakh, where any high magnitude earthquake would completely cut off water supply.

   I have already touched upon Japanese ‘earthquake-proof’ building design in a previous post, but Japan is now turning much of its attention to tsunami mitigation. A 400 km long sea wall along the North-East of Honshu, near Sendai is currently being constructed (where the devastating magnitude 9 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami hit in 2011 - but more of that in my next post!) to protect residents and infrastructure from flooding effects of tsunamis and typhoons (Gough, 2015). This sea wall - dubbed the ‘Great Wall of Japan’ - when finished, will be 5 stories high and is set to cost $6.8 billion. However, there have been many criticisms of this use of hard engineering methods, as opposed to soft engineering such as afforestation. Although afforestation will not stop a tsunami, it could help to slow down the speed of waves and prevent some debris being washed back out to sea (RT, 2015).

Building of the 'Great Wall of Japan'. Source

   Sea walls are fairly controversial in Japan; they are known to negatively affect oceanic wildlife by reducing biodiversity via loss of habitat (Galbraith et al., 2002), and are seen as unsightly. In some areas sea walls have been effective flood defences such as in Fundai; in others they have not. A breakwater which cost over $1 billion to construct to protect the city of Kamaishi instantly crumbled on impact during the Tohoku tsunami in 2011, killing around 1,000 people (The Economist, 2014). But, as climate change pushes sea level higher, and the frequency of natural hazards begins to increase, this may be the only viable solution that the government pursues - they are already planning to protect a further 14,000 km of coastline once the sea wall has been completed. What is your opinion on sea walls as a flood defence? Do the negative impacts to the environment outweigh the possible benefits to community safety or vice versa? Next posts will include: the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, climate change and risk/vulnerability in Japan, and the social inequality in hazard mitigation.

Can Climate Change Cause Earthquakes and Volcanic Eruptions?

For my next blog posts, I am going to do another case-study saga similar to my posts on Ladakh, this time in Japan. I thought this might be an interesting contrast between two regions that are both hazard hot-spots, but with a wide gap in GDP. I was actually intending to start my Japan saga in this post, but I came upon some interesting articles online yesterday by a Geologist at UCL, Bill McGuire, that I wanted to talk about. These articles stated a causal link between climate change and geological hazards such as earthquakes and volcanoes.  I’d heard many times before that volcanic eruptions have the potential to change climate change, but never that climate change might cause eruptions. Let me know what you think in the comment section below!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Typically, when thinking of climate induced hazards, most of us (myself included) will think of mass movement, flooding, storms, droughts, etc. However, there is a growing body of evidence that supports the idea that climate change is linked to a potential growing frequency in geophysical hazards. The time scale that this operates over, however, is not entirely clear, so whether we will see the change in our lifetime is questionable. 

   In Iceland, for example, ice sheets that cover volcanoes such as the Eyjafjallajökull ice-sheet, are rapidly melting. During the melting period, large pressures that are exerted by the ice are beginning to lessen, which may have the effect of triggering volcanic eruptions. In other words, the change in weight alters the balance of forces atop of the Earth’s crust, decreasing lithostatic pressure (Loughlin, 2002). By geological standards, this change in weight can make the rebound take place very rapidly, destabilising the faults. The recent eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano, which caused a European air-traffic stand-still, is thought by some to have resulted from the recent rapid warming of high-latitudes. However, this is still hotly debated, with some scientists predicting a significant lag-time of around 2,500 years before we would see the effects on volcanic activity.

Will there be more future eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull? Source

   Similarly, the loading and subsequent unloading of ice due to rapid warming on active faults could cause earthquakes, and even submarine landslides that have the potential to cause tsunamis. GPS measurements have revealed that the crust beneath the Greenland ice sheet is rebounding due to warming, providing the potential for future earthquakes. There is a possibility that this could trigger submarine landslides spawning tsunamis capable of threatening North Atlantic coastlines (McGuire, 2007). In fact, history may repeat itself, as during the last Ice Age, the melting of the ice caused increased seismicity along the margins of ice sheets in Scandinavia, resulting in these submarine landslides (McGuire, 2012).

   Ice melt from climate change will predominantly enter the ocean, and additionally, as temperatures rise, the water in the ocean will expand in a process named ‘thermal expansion’ or steric sea-level rise (IPCC, N/A). Both these two factors will result in global sea level rise. This extra weight could apply extra pressure to faults near coastlines, effectively ‘bending’ the crust. This compression could push magma lying around underneath a volcano, triggering eruptions. For example, the seasonal eruptions of Pavlof volcano in Alaska tend to occur during the winter months when the regional sea-level is only 30cm higher than during the summer (McGuire, 2012), highlighting the sensitivity of some volcanoes to sea-level change.  Additionally, McGuire et al. (1997) examined the change in the rate of sea-level rise and volcanic activity in the Mediterranean for the past 80,000 years, finding that when sea level rose quickly, more volcanic eruptions occurred, increasing at a staggering 300%.

However, many geologists such as Roland Burgmann of the University of Berkeley, California are doubtful of the validity of these claims. They state that catastrophic rates of sea level rise in the future are uncertain, and that the current rate of rise - around 3mm per year (NASA, 2015) - is not enough to destabilise the crust. When researching for this article, I was surprised at how little literature seemed to address this issue, which perhaps indicates that it is of little cause for concern. What do you think? 

Storm Abigail - A Result of Anthropogenic Environmental Change?

Chances are, if you've been living in the UK the last few days you've heard of Storm Abigail (a product of Hurricane Kate), our first ever named storm. Generally, the UK has had relatively stable and easy to manage weather - in Southern England, we get on average less than 650 mm per year of precipitation (Met Office, 2015). Granted, in some parts of Scotland rainfall can exceed 4,000 mm per year, severe storms are quite rare.

Storm Abigail hit with Hurricane-force winds, floods and blackouts when it struck the North. Off the coast of west Scotland, waves measured up to 42ft were forecast along with gusts of 70mph - in some exposed locations reaching up to 100 mph (e.g. in the Western Isles). The Met Office have upgraded the storm to an amber warning.

Is Storm Abigail a sign of things to come in the UK due to increasing anthropogenic change? Mainstream rhetoric seems to state that climate change is a problem that is predominantly only facing developing countries. A Met Office report in 2014 stated how throughout the winter months of 2013/14, the UK experienced an exceptional run of severe winter storms, that culminated in widespread coastal damage and flooding from January. The report estimates that by 2030, a sea-level rise of between 11-16cm is likely, which would only increase flooding and coastal erosion when further storms occur. Additionally, heavy rain events are becoming more frequent. In the 1960s and 1970s, what might have been a 1 in 125 day event is now becoming a 1 in 85 day event (Jones et al., 2013).

Climate sceptics, however, are unsurprisingly doubting the validity of this argument on various blogs. It is my opinion, that anthropogenic environmental change is causing more severe storms like Abigail, as evident by the Met Office report. Already the Met Office have shortlisted several future storm names, indicating a predicted increase in the frequency of severe storms in the UK. Do you think Storm Abigail is a result of climate change?

Source: memecrunch.com

Environmental Change: a Gendered Issue?

Welcome to my first blog post after the Ladakh saga! Thank you for sticking with me through three long posts - it was only meant to be one post but I ended up getting carried away. This post is going to be dedicated to the issue of gender and climate change, but, of course, focusing on the issue of natural disasters and hazards. Thanks to the people that have already filled out my poll on the right hand side - I am actually quite surprised with the result so far. If you haven’t done so, I would love to hear your opinions on this issue, so please fill out the poll!

Next post: Hurricane Abigail - a result of anthropogenic climate change?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With COP21 in Paris looming around the corner, I believe it is of utmost importance for everyone to be able to understand current and potential climate policy. I am, and have always been a firm believer in gendered implications in any crisis - be it war, famine, or natural disasters. What I mean is that women, and minority genders, are more vulnerable than men. I understand that my view isn’t shared by everyone; a Gender Studies lecturer at my University isn’t even convinced by the link between natural disasters and gender (which doesn’t bode well for my argument...). Nevertheless, I will attempt to convince you otherwise.

There has been a recent shift in development organisations to ‘gender-mainstream’ policy. For example, the United Nations have begun to make their Millennium Development Goals more gender-sensitive, bringing in policies to promote gender equality and women’s empowerment, and also acknowledging that other areas such as health have gendered implications.

The underlying principle behind literature on the gendered nature of climate change is that women are often poorer and more vulnerable to poverty than men, particularly in developing countries. Additionally, socially constructed male-female gender roles and power-relations are an important factor (Blaikie et al., 1994).

Global Gender Gap in 2013. Source

Nelson et al. (2002) describe how women experience high levels of pre- and post-disaster poverty, due to experiencing unequal status in the workforce, being more likely to be employed in the informal sector and small enterprises (which are more vulnerable to disasters), and having less equitable access to land and other natural resources compared to men.

Take, for example, the 1991 cyclone floods in Bangladesh. Of the 20-44 age group who were affected by the flood, 71 females per thousand died compared with 15 males per thousand (Baden et al., 1994). This was due to a number of cultural factors: women had less opportunity to learn how to swim, and norms that related to the preservation of women’s honour through seclusion meant that they delayed leaving the house to seek refuge.

Another natural disaster that Nelson et al. (2002) mentions is Hurricane Mitch, which is a particular example of post-disaster vulnerability. The most affected to the hurricane were the most marginalised in society, which included female-headed households. Most of the responsibility of caring for children and the elderly fell on women, which resulted in women finding it difficult to return to waged work. On the other hand, men had little cultural expectations to care for the vulnerable, and were easily able to resume paid work after the disaster.

I could give plenty more examples relating to drought, tsunamis, earthquakes and even mass movement, but I am wary of making this post too long - so perhaps I will resume this topic in another blog post. I think, what will be most interesting to see is whether during the COP21 talks, gender-mainstreaming policy will be taken into account. As natural hazards and disasters are becoming a major issue in climate change rhetoric, the gendered nature of natural disasters need to be acknowledged. 

What do you think? Do you think that climate change is a gendered issue?

Looking at Ladakh - Part 3

This will be my final post on Ladakh - I’ve really enjoyed having an outlet to describe some of my feelings and thoughts on the region, and I hope you’ve enjoyed reading about it to! It is definitely one of the most interesting places I’ve ever visited, as you can probably tell by my excitement when writing. My next post will be on whether there is a gendered nature to climate change impacts - looking particularly at natural hazards (as a feminist I can’t resist talking about gender!). Before I upload my next post, I’ve attached a poll on the right-hand side to see what my readers think of the topic, maybe I can change your mind! In the meantime, happy reading :)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The average annual income in Jammu and Kashmir per capita is around £870 (Gov of India, 2014), with the main sources of income being derived from agriculture, and the highly seasonal tourism industry. Slightly worryingly for Ladakh, is that tourism is a highly volatile industry, vulnerable to external shocks. Thus, most recently, the regions natural disasters have begun to discourage tourists from visiting. As there is an issue of a rise in the frequency of natural hazards due to environmental change, mitigation is crucial for the region.

As of yet, the main disaster management techniques used have been hazard responsive. After the cloud burst event in 2010, the Indian Army immediately launched a series of Search and Rescue operations, with Army medics on hand to treat the injured (Gupta et al., 2012). However, although search and rescue operations are needed once a disaster strikes, it is critical to enact disaster prevention schemes in conjunction with responsive strategies. That being said, not all prevention schemes will be suitable in Ladakh due to its low income status and poor road and communication networks (Gov of Jammu and Kashmir, 2006). These include some hard engineering techniques such as Japanese ‘earthquake proof’ building designs. In this post, I will explore a couple of potential management strategies that may be suitable for the region.

The Natural Disaster Management Act (2005) envisaged a proactive approach to disaster management in the region, through preparedness, prevention and planning, and to integrate disaster prevention in development - although this has been limited in success (as shown by management techniques in 2010), and has been criticised strongly for its distinctly 'top-down' approach.

Mass Movement Mitigation

In Ladakh, soil is bare and rocky with bare gravel slopes, with mass movement occurring frequently in Jammu and Kashmir as a whole - the hazard being most likely triggered by a flash flood (Gov of Jammu and Kashmir, 2006). Development activities, such as deforestation and road construction, have decreased the stability of slopes (Hodgkins, 2013). One of the key strategies to increase slope stability would be afforestation to anchor slopes and raise their shear strength. The majority of vegetation in the region are scrub-like vegetation such as Ephedraceae, and grasslands. It would be vital to plant these so as not to introduce invasive species. Afforestation is also a relatively low cost technique.

Ephedra gerardiana found in the Himalaya. Source: flowersofindia.net

Drainage networks on slopes are also a suitable and viable option, particularly with slopes close to human populations. The presence of water within a rocky slope are most often the major factor leading to instability. Hoek and Bray (1981) describe that drainage networks should take three considerations into account:

• Reduce water pressure in the vicinity of potential breakage surfaces through selective shallow and sub-shallow drainage
• Place drainage in order to reduce water pressure in the immediate vicinity of the hillside
• Prevent water entering the hillside through open or discontinuity traction cracks.

Flood Mitigation

Similarly to mass movement mitigation, one of the most feasible approaches to manage the effects of flooding would be afforestation, due to interception of precipitation and reduction of surface runoff. Around streambeds and wetlands in Ladakh, trees are able to grow, such as Willow, Juniper and Poplar (Kar and Chandel, 2009). in In my last post, I also mentioned that there was a potential for glacial lakes and rivers to burst their banks from the new influxes of glacial meltwater, in what is termed as an ‘outburst flood’. Perhaps the most important management strategy to take is to reduce the volume of water in the glacial lakes, thus reducing the magnitude of the possible peak discharge at the time of breach. This can be achieved through a variety of means: controlled breaching of the moraine dams; construction of an outlet control structure; pumping or siphoning the water from the lake; and tunnelling through the moraine barrier or under an ice dam (Mool et al., 2011).

Land-Use Management

Source: Geology for Global Development

If we go back to the diagram used in my first blog post (above), to manage natural disasters effectively, it is key to limit exposure and vulnerability. The management techniques mentioned so far are effective at limiting vulnerability, but to limit exposure land-use planning should be used to ensure houses are not being built on hazard-risk zones. GIS and remote sensing can provide valuable information for hazard mapping, and to show which areas are suitable for future development (Gupta et al., 2012). GIS mapping can be relatively low-cost due to mapping programs such as Google Maps being readily available for free online. Ladakh is also fortunate to be close to the prestigious Jammu and Kashmir University, which is well known for its highly regarded Geology department.

Looking at Ladakh - Part 2

Hi everyone - thank you for all the comments you have been giving me on my posts! I was planning to make this the final blog post on Ladakh, but the region is just so fascinating that I realised I had written a lot more than I had planned to. So this will be the penultimate post; the final will be on management techniques and looking at who will be most impacted by climate change in the region - with a particular focus on gender. Anyway, I hope you enjoy this post!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Ladakh, anthropogenic climate change is predicted by many scientists and organisations (e.g. WWF; IPCC, 2007) to make the region warmer. Precipitation, will additionally be effected - becoming more sporadic and intense, which would increase the likelihood of extreme weather events such as the cloudburst event in 2010 (featured in my last blog-post). In the last 35 years, temperatures in winter have risen by around a degree, and in summer by 0.5 degrees Celsius (Singh, 2014). Glacial ice sheets high in the Himalaya that store large volumes of freshwater have began to melt at an alarming rate due to this recent warming (UNEP, 2007). Some glaciers, such as the Imja, are declining by 200m every year (Somos-Valenzuela et al., 2012). What this has meant, is that the freshwater from glacial streams and lakes that many Himalayan towns rely on is becoming a rapidly scarce resource as the glacier shrinks in size. Ladakh’s two main industries - agriculture and tourism - are both very water intensive, particularly as tourism figures have began to reach thousands each year, and these tourists are demanding a higher and higher water usage per capita. 

The receding Imja Glacier and the growing Imja Lake. Source: The Guardian

For the time being, however, while some regions experience drought, other glacial lakes and streams have begun to increase in volume from the new influx of glacial meltwater. This has become a problem in itself, with lakes and streams overflowing in much of the Himalaya more broadly. The Imja glacial lake, for example, in Nepal is one of the most rapidly growing lakes in the Himalayan range. It has grown to nearly double the size in the last decade (Watanabe et al., 2009), reflecting the dangerous status bestowed upon it by the scientific community, such as Somos-Valenzuela et al. (2012) due to concerns that it may burst its banks. Similarly, in Ladakh, reports (e.g. Ahmad, 2015) show that glacial lakes have began to overflow, with flash flooding and mass movement impacting local communities. Precipitation in Ladakh is also becoming a large problem. While it may be intuitive to think that an increase in extreme weather events will decrease the chance of drought, it is not the case. Ladakh has an annual precipitation rate of 100mm per year, which falls mostly in the months of July and August, up to a rate of 25mm per month during this time (Worldweather.com, n/a). The low annual rainfall and seasonality of the rain is responsible for Ladakh’s dry, barren ground mostly lacking in vegetation. The cloudburst event of 2010 reached a peak precipitation rate of 75mm in 30 minutes; almost an entire year's worth of rain. If the scientists at the conference I attended are correct in estimating an increase in the frequency of extreme weather events and seasonality of rainfall, then the barren landscape of Ladakh will only exacerbate flooding and mass movement.

Children in St. Peter's School, Ladakh expressing

 their concern for the melting glaciers  

According to the Jammu and Kashmir State Action Plan on Climate Change (2013), maximum temperatures are expected to rise to between 0.5 - 2.5 degrees Celsius, while minimum temperatures are projected to rise by 1 - 4.5 degrees Celsius. Additionally, the report also estimates that the number of days with precipitation in the Himalayan region in 2030 may increase by 5 - 10 days on average, while the intensity of rainfall is likely to rise by 1 - 2 mm per day. It is no wonder, therefore, that the IPCC (2007) report state that every year, there will be at least one natural disaster in the Himalayan region. With population and tourist numbers soaring in Ladakh, it remains to be seen what a suitable plan of action will be. Not only will natural disasters such as flooding and drought become more prevalent, but secondary hazards that result from these (and earthquakes) in the area will increase in frequency - such as mass movement - due to unsuitable town planning. I will have to finish here - but in my final post I will comment on what direction I think the government should be pursuing! Any comments or feedback would be greatly appreciated :)

Introduction - Welcome to my blog! (repost)

I very stupidly deleted my first blog post (by accident), so unfortunately this is just going to be a repost of it - although I didn't save the most up-to-date version so this may vary slightly. I also lost some of the reference links but will hopefully be able to find them soon. Thank you to everyone that commented on the original!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi everyone! Welcome to my blog! The content of my blog will be regarding anthropogenic climate/land-use change and whether this may affect future frequency and intensity of natural hazards. Before I address future anthropogenic concerns, I will first look at some relevant theory on natural hazards. Natural hazards are naturally occurring events that range in form and magnitude. They include:

• Geophysical - earthquakes, mass movement, cyclonic storms, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis;
•  Biological - disease and infestations; 
• Others, such as floods, drought and wildfires. 

A common misconception is to equate natural hazards and natural disasters as one in the same, and to use these terms interchangeably. However, in order for a natural hazard to turn into a disaster, a number of other factors are involved (although in reality it is not this clean-cut):

Turning a hazard into a disaster. Source: Geology for Global Development

A natural disaster is a hazard that directly or indirectly affects a human population. In order to minimize the effects of a disaster, it must occur far from a community (limit exposure) or the community must have the capacity to prepare, absorb and recover (limit vulnerability). Due to new global population pressures, more people are being pushed into hazard-risk areas, with poorly made informal settlements increasing the vulnerability of these communities to disaster (Huppert and Sparks, 2006). In resource-rich countries such as Japan and the USA, specially made ‘hazard-proof’ structures ensure that governments are able to mitigate damages from a hazard. This is particularly important when considering that over 95% of all deaths from earthquakes result from building collapse (Anderson, 1985).

Engineered 'earthquake-proof' building. Source: web-japan.org 

So, how does anthropogenic change affect frequency and intensity of natural hazards? I argue on this blog that anthropogenic change in both land-use and climate (fueled primarily by GHG emissions) will change many natural hazards into natural disasters. I will also look at whether these disasters will affect different demographic groups disproportionately; whether gender, age, race or income would make a person more at risk. By using a predominantly feminist lens, I aim to dissect and critique much of the theory surrounding the Anthropocene and natural hazards.

I realise I am taking a somewhat ‘Malthusian’ point of view to this topic, and there may be room for technological advancements to limit the effects of hazards to such an extent - although currently they vary in success. In my next post I will be looking at the region of Ladakh, India, to examine how the intensity of earthquakes, floods and mass movement has changed in recent years. In this region, is there such a chance for these technological advancements to limit risk? Read my next post to find out!

Looking at Ladakh: Part 1

During the summer last year, myself and a fellow UCL student travelled to Ladakh in India with the NGO Geology for Global Development (GfGD). The purpose of this trip was to teach local school children about Geology, and to attend an academic conference held by scientists from around the world. One of the main focuses of the conference was on natural hazards, which highlights the importance of the topic in current geological circles; especially in Ladakh itself.

Dry, loose material covering slopes in Ladakh. Source: mouthshut.com

The region of Ladakh is part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, which sits high in the Himalaya on a 3000m high plateau. It is vulnerable to a variety of hazards; drought, floods, mass movement and owing to its position on the Karakoram fault-plane (Rutter et al., 2007) - earthquakes. One of the largest natural disasters in Ladakh happened only a few years previously, in August 2010. After heavy overnight rains and a cloudburst event, the region was hit by an intense flood. It triggered a chain of secondary hazards, such as mudslides and debris flows (Hodgkins, 2013), resulting in the death of an estimated 234 people (Gupta et al., 2012). Due to the dry climate of Ladakh through most of the year, slope material is made of loose, unconsolidated material with little vegetation covering the slopes. This means that when a heavy rainfall event does occur, the runoff generated is huge, while the slopes are incredibly unstable and therefore prone to mass movement.

Cleaning up the effects of a debris flow after the 2010 cloudburst event. Source: climatechangenews.asia

At the school, the damage of the cloudburst event still seemed in the forefront of many students minds. Just after we left, another set of heavy rainfall triggered a further disaster near the city of Srinagar, close to Ladakh in Jammu and Kashmir. There is worrying evidence, however, that the frequency of these disasters is set to increase due to anthropogenic change. Firstly, as population pressures increase, many people look for cheap land to build their houses on - the cheapest being upon the unstable slopes of the region (Nagle, 1998). This issue became particularly poignant, when after teaching a session on the hazards of building on unstable slopes, many students approached us worried about the stability of their own houses, and the downwards pressure these structures would have on the slopes... For now, I will end my blog post on Ladakh, but stay tuned for part 2 where I will be looking at further anthropogenic issues and mitigation efforts! See you soon!