The main aim of hazard management should be to reduce the effects of hazards, not manage their cause

fortune guidance in the long run aims to prune the danger that a accident tin put up to humans. This nates be do done the four steps of modifying the originator, event, vulner top executive and loss. I believe that the ca substance abuse of many immanent incidents, such(prenominal)(prenominal) as geophysical and meteorologic backs dealnot keeped, thus the centering of the get of a prospect is irrelevant in the foc victimisation of many gages. As such, it should be the suit of clothes that the main aim of calamity direction should be to reduce the personnels of games quite a than manage their cause.The issue of reducing the effect of hazards would be discussed in the four split of the hazard management framework. I acquiesce with the statement to a oversize finale that hazard management should not be centered on managing the cause. The few slip delegacy in which the cause of the hazard dejection be modified will be discussed. Although the most ideal method would be to prevent the occurrence of the event in the rootage place, to stop a hazard from occurring entirely is a feat that unremarkably would be notwithstanding be executable in terms of small scale, separated phenomena, taking the exemplar of a flood.Floods ar examples of small scale hazards that rouse be prevented through technological means. Often, levees can be built to prevent a river from overflowing, such as the levees built along the multiple sclerosis River in North America, or the Scheldt River in the Netherlands. Also, blocks can be built to agree irrigate in a lake, and can be used to control the water flow, thus preventing rivers from overflowing too quickly. A approximate example of a dam that has prevented repeated flooding occurrence is the hoover Dam along the Colorado River.It is save that before the building of the dam, in that respect was ordinary flooding at the low trickery beas of the river during spring. spot physical methods can be employed to prevent the occurrence of these separate hazards like floods and landslides, large scale hazards such as earthquakes, tsunamis and wind storms cannot be prevented. As such, modification of the cause is highly express to a few hazards, thus make it more executable to consider early(a) onward motiones in reducing the effects of the volume of hazards which will almost inevitably occur.While technology cannot be used to prevent the causes of all hazards, technology can excessively be used to modify the event. Earthquakes is a good example of a hazard where the earthquake itself does not usually cause the loss of lives, quite a, it is usually its effect on other structures that causes the most destruction, such as the toppling of buildings or causing landslides. As such, a good method of earthquake management would be to equip buildings with the ability to check the impact of earthquakes, using various architectural designs.A famous example of an earthquake resi stant building is Taipei 101, which ft is reinforced 80 metres deep into the farming and has a steel ball cognize as a tuned mass moist which balances the building. During its construction in 2002, Taipei go through a 6. 8 magnitude earthquake, and soon enough the skyscraper did not topple and experienced no structural damages. Sometimes, such as in certain Japanese house designs, the houses ar not built to withstand earthquakes except such that it moves along with the earthquake, using grooves kind of than nails to fit the house together.Furthermore, the light forest has lower probability of killing deal if it topples. These different designs show how it is executable to use knowledge of engineering and architecture to reduce the impact of hazards. Modifying vulnerability is another nest to hazard management which aims to growth homework of mint themselves to tackle the hazard when it occur, including methods such as increasing familiarity preparation, proposenin g, create warning systems, and changing sciences.Community preparedness is essential in all communities where hazard occurrence is frequent, to train and educate people as to how to respond to a hazard and drawing show up evacuation plans, and stocking up emergency supplies of food, water and medicine. Also, people can be instruct in start aid, search and rescue, and firefighting, etc. In close to shields, this is much more feasible than using technology, when the comprise is too high. A courting study of Norway, where avalanches are frequent, is a good example.Due to the accompaniment that neither move nor retrofitting buildings was a feasible option, the most cost effective plan would be to drop vulnerability. This was done mainly through set up a warning system, and culmination up with a plan to guide an evacuation, by appointing a group of representatives from from each one community and training the people on how to counterbalance. The plan was highly successful , showing the deservingness in proper planning and preparedness.In many ways the perception and cognizance of the community to hazards is very important. Changing the perception of people is also essential in reducing the impacts of hazards, for contradict perception by a group of people can ultimately lead many deaths, in cases where communities, especially in LEDCs, are resigned to the fact that nothing can be done to prevent hazard occurrence and that hazards are unavoidable and look upon them as a way of life. Even in MEDCs, perceptions can cause problems.There is a case where, during the evacuation for Hurricane Katrina, some of the venerable did not ask evacuate, because of fear of new active conditions, or that they do not want to leave their home. This contri preciselyed to the majority of the deaths macrocosm the elderly in these events. Thus, changing the perceptions of various peoples in different cultural contexts plays a large role in hazard management, ensuring that the community would want to save themselves in the first place. In all, modifying vulnerability can ultimately lead to people knowing how to react to hazards and thus reduces the negative effects of them.In many cases, managing the cause of inwrought hazards may bring certain disadvantages, for most natural hazards, while posing a holy terror to humans, are actually only natural phenomenon, and at times confuse benefits to us and the environment. A very good example is the case of a flood, where people have tried to create physical barriers to subscribe to the flood water such as levees and dams. While this may be applicable to MEDCs, for many agricultural communities, such an get along is inapplicable, for they depend on the floodplain where there is a high amount of nutrients, deposited by flooding, and supply of water.In these contexts, such as in Bangladesh, where the people depend on these floods, the prevention of the hazard would uproot their way of life. In this way, floods need not incessantly be treated as negative phenomena, causing damage in only certain contexts. In my opinion, modifying the vulnerability, not the cause should be the main aim of hazard management. This holds since there are two factors impart to risk hazard and vulnerability. Since eliminating the hazard is only unfeasible in many large hazards, the best thing to manage should be human vulnerability.Since the main aim should be centered on that can be applicable to all communities, it should be something feasible in contexts where there is lack of frugal and technological resources, thus ruling out modifying the event as a voltage main aim. As such, hazard management should not be centered on technology, such as the retrofitting of buildings, but rather something like education, which is more cost effective. In all, the main aim should be to plus the resilience of the people themselves to tackle the hazard.For example, in the case of Bangladesh, people adapt to the floods and chance on to use it to their own benefit, neither beholding it as a negative phenomenon, nor something they should fear. afterwards changing any negative perceptions of hazards in communities, community preparedness is essential. A coffin nail up advance equips people with the ability to save their own lives rather than being dependant on others. In fact, it has been shown that this approach whole kit and caboodle much better than worldwide aid or rescuers from the military.For example, the rescue efforts to the floods in Mozambique in 2001 was a success, not because of anything else, but more of the fact that the people were trained in how to respond, and that there was a understandably drawn out evacuation plan and appointed leaders in the community. Mozambique, though being one of the poorest countries in the world, has managed to increase community preparedness, thus showing how this approach to hazard management, may just be the most universal method of ta ckling hazards, which works regardless of affluence.In conclusion, it is true that hazard management should be primarily or so reacting to the hazards and reducing the damage it brings, rather than move to prevent it. Still, as technology continues to develop, we cannot blow out it as an essential part of hazard management, for what may not be possible to prevent now, may be in the future. So, both sides of the equation must be considered to tackle risk effectively, depending on the context.