The Nature of \u201cNatural Disasters\u201d: Survivors\u2019 Explanations of Earthquake Damage

Alessandro Massazza,Helene Joffe,Chris R Brewin

doi:10.1007/s13753-019-0223-z

Abstract

The distinction between natural and human-made disasters is ingrained in everyday language. Disaster scientists have long been critical of this dichotomy. Nonetheless, virtually no attention has been paid to how disaster survivors conceptualize the causes of the disasters they experience. In this mixed-methods longitudinal study, 112 survivors of the 2016–2017 Central Italy earthquakes completed questionnaires 3 and 16 months following the earthquakes, with the aim of assessing attributions of blame for the earthquake damage. In-depth interviews were also conducted with 52 participants at the 3-month mark to explore representations of causation for the earthquake damage. The distinction between disasters caused by nature and disasters caused by humans was not supported by survivors of the earthquake. In the longitudinal surveys, building firms and the State were assigned as much blame as nature for the earthquake damage, at both 3 months and 16 months after the earthquakes. Corroborating this complexity, in the interviews, the causes of the earthquake damage, rather than being understood as purely natural, were perceived as a complex mosaic composed of political, technological, natural, and moral factors. This empirical work shows that disaster survivors combine both nature-based and human-based explanations of disasters, rather than subscribing to one or the other. These findings have practical implications for disaster risk reduction and response.

Highlights

Following the devastation of Lisbon by an earthquake and tsunami in 1755 the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote to Voltaire questioning the common naturalistic interpretation of disaster causation, noting how ‘‘it was hardly nature who assembled there twenty-thousand houses of six or seven stories
The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) states that ‘‘there is no such thing as a natural disaster, only natural hazards’’ (UNISDR 2019), and the term natural disaster was not included in the UNISDR terminology index (UNISDR 2007)
No significant statistical difference was found between mean attribution levels for the three most blamed entities, that is, building firms, nature, and the State following Wilcoxon ranked comparison of means

Summary

Introduction

Following the devastation of Lisbon by an earthquake and tsunami in 1755 the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote to Voltaire questioning the common naturalistic interpretation of disaster causation, noting how ‘‘it was hardly nature who assembled there twenty-thousand houses of six or seven stories. The field of disaster science has been vocal in critiquing the distinction between natural and human-made disasters (Kelman 2010), arguing for taking the ‘‘naturalness out of natural disasters’’ (O’Keefe et al 1976) and stressing the ‘‘un-naturalness’’ (Tiranti 1977) of natural disasters. Tsunamis, and floods can be conceptualized as natural hazards, such hazards are necessary, but not sufficient, for a disaster to take place (Wells 2017), and only become disasters through their encounter with human vulnerability. The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) states that ‘‘there is no such thing as a natural disaster, only natural hazards’’ (UNISDR 2019), and the term natural disaster was not included in the UNISDR terminology index (UNISDR 2007)

Results

Discussion

Conclusion