living with risk 62
elevate low-lying buildings after they are flooded, reconstruct new buildings after earthquakes damage them, prohibit reconstruction once landslides occur, and turn hurricanedamaged coastlines into parklands. The surest way to address pre-existing hazards is to completely relocate communities that are in known hazardous areas, and this becomes much easier to accomplish—financially and politically—once a disaster has destroyed them. Following the 1964 Alaskan earthquake, for example, the town of Valdez—destroyed by a tsunami—was completely relocated to a better-protected site a few miles away. The town’s residents could retain their fishing-related livelihoods, and the stores and government offices could continue to provide jobs and serve the needs of residents. However, because people have historic, cultural, or economic reasons for living in specific locations, relocation is not always the best answer. My work in post-disaster reconstruction over the past two decades has taken me to many places in the world where relocations—rationally based on scientific assessments of natural hazards—were not necessarily the most beneficial way to improve the lives of residents. While providing safety from the natural hazard, relocations may in fact have the perverse effect of disrupting lives to the detriment of public health. This is particularly so where people’s livelihoods are closely tied to place. For example, in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu following the great tsunami of 2004, residents within 200
meters of the shore were given free houses in inland locations. But many residents refused to move because the local fishing economy required them to stay close to the sea where they kept their boats and tended their nets. After severe eruptions of Merapi volcano in Indonesia in 2010, the government offered to relocate nearly 80,000 people who were in areas covered by flows of volcanic ash or exposed to future flows. Although some still have unburied fields, most relocated households have had to give up their traditional farming occupations and develop other livelihoods. A 2004 earthquake in the Chuetsu area of Japan caused landslides that affected the lives of residents of numerous mountain villages in this remote, aging, and depopulating part of rural Japan. One of the two affected municipalities encouraged relocation out of the mountains, and the other promoted reconstruction in place. In the end, most households made their decisions based on their own livelihood needs: whether they preferred the agricultural lifestyle in the mountains or chose to provide their family members with access to the modern economy in the urban areas. Emotional and cultural attachments to place also affect reconstruction decisions. In the town of Kesennuma, Japan, following the 2011 tsunami, residents have resisted the construction of a seawall, a project that would cut off the close connection between the center of town and its fishing harbor. Residents are well aware of the risk, having survived the 2011 event, but they still prioritize their attachment to the sea. Together with government, they are currently working