Climate change risks: social behaviour and the role of science

I’d like to make an attempt using political ecology to create a counter narrative on the current perceptions of risk to natural disasters. As you all know scientific modelling results predict future changes in the intensity and frequency of climate related natural calamities (e.g. forest fires and hurricanes). As a result, it has become common practice in recent years to attribute any major natural catastrophe to climate change.

I’d like to argue that the extent of damage resulting from certain natural disasters is more strongly related to socio-economic forces and behaviours than to climate change itself. The reality is that people are moving into more vulnerable areas and that settlements that have historically been vulnerable are now sustaining larger populations.

When analysed in these terms, the increased number of ‘natural catastrophes’ can in fact be re-assessed in terms of increased exposure of human infrastructure and human settlements to natural disasters. Let’s forget for a minute about climate change. Why do people move to vulnerable areas? On one hand it could be argue that some of the most productive systems in the world and suitable for human activities are actually located in vulnerable areas (think of coastal areas, river banks and forest edges for example). Or it could be argued that within poor developing nations there is little choice in terms of where new settlements are created, and that much of the planning occurs ad hoc, without consideration of associated risks to natural disasters. But that can’t be the end of the story.

Why do people in developed countries that have access to accurate information on vulnerability make the choice of living in certain areas despite their related risks? I think there are insightful observations in two of our assigned readings for this week that can bring light to this issue. The first one is the reading by Louise Confort (2006) on Hurricane Katrina. The article primarily focuses on explaining how organizational and technical failures were the primary causes of the extent of damage suffered by New Orleans in 2005. However it also brings to light another issue: human reliance on technological innovation. Although the vulnerability of the area was well know it was believed that an engineered solution could mild potential impacts from hurricane and flooding. I think unfortunately the view that for as long as we can count on technology we should not be concerned with vulnerability is largely spread and this has largely affected people’s perceptions of risk.

The second reading, by Leigh Johnson on the risk industry (Chapter 9), brings to light yet another factor. The chapter focuses on the risk industry’s responses to climate change claims and evaluates whether the industry incorporates climate projections into their own agenda. The text has some suggestions that I fear may be truth. Firstly, that although insurance companies are seeking the advice of climate experts, they are not actually taking into account these results (at least not in terms of avoiding vulnerable areas). Second, that the insurance companies are taking advantage of the social fear surrounding some of the future projections and are using this opportunity to expand, get more clients and sell what would have previously been considered “uninsurable perils”. Taking this back to the question raised in the previous paragraph: if a person decided to live in a vulnerable area but was unable to find an insurance company willing to cover the risks of that property, that person would perhaps reconsider their decision. However it seems that as reinsurance is allowing insurance companies to cover for more, people will have a tendency to believe they are being protected (even though in reality they might be more vulnerable). This is perhaps one of the drivers for what could otherwise be considered as an irrational boom in real estate development in vulnerable areas (especially coastlines).

Where does science come into all this? Well unfortunately it seems that although scientist might make genuine efforts to assess the vulnerability of many areas, these evaluations are not actually being taken into account accordingly. People would rather believe in some kind of engineered solution, feel safe by protecting their properties through insurance and blame climate change for any incurred damages. The fact that there are limits to where humans should live and that people’s behaviour influences local vulnerability should be more taken into account in future studies and be considered more seriously as an important cause of “catastrophic” events.

Literature cited

Comfort, LK. 2006. Cities at risk: Hurricane Katrina and the drowning of New Orleans. Urban Affairs Review 41 (4):501

Johnson L. 2011. Chapter 9 in Peet et al. Climate Change and the Risk Industry: The Multiplication of Fear and Value

Laura Canevari