World Disasters Report 2010 - International Federation of Red Cross ...

6. “Urban development is opposed to rural
development.” Much of the demand that
produces rural incomes comes from urban
populations and urban enterprises. Many
higher-paying jobs in rural areas (including
off-farm work) come from urban demand.
Successful farmers depend on urban-based
facilities and services – markets, banks,
processing plants, cold-storage facilities,
supply and repair of machinery and agricultural
inputs. Rural populations often
depend on their local urban centre for access
to hospitals, secondary schools, post
offices and most consumer goods and services.
Many low-income rural households
20
have their incomes boosted by remittances
from a family member working in urban
areas.
7. “Large and rapidly growing cities have the
worst environmental problems.” Large cities
often have better standards of environmental
health than most other urban centres in
their nation (and most rural areas). Wellgoverned
cities have the world’s best quality
of life (and highest life expectancies).
It is not the size and speed at which a
city grows that determines environmental
problems but the quality of its government
and its relations with its low-income population.
�
Disaster impacts in rural and urban areas
Disasters have long had their largest impacts in rural areas in terms of deaths, serious
injuries and impoverishment. In part, this was simply because most people lived and
worked in rural areas but this is no longer the case. It was also partly because most of
those with the least resilience to disasters lived in rural areas. This is changing with
the growth in what can be termed the ‘vulnerability gap’ in urban areas and as it does,
it brings with it a need to consider why more disaster risk is in urban areas and what
this implies for both development and disaster risk reduction. The vulnerability gap is
produced by two factors: the lack of knowledge and financial capacity (and sometimes
willingness) of urban authorities to reduce risks and vulnerabilities; and a high proportion
of urban households and communities limited in their capacity to reduce risk
by inadequate incomes, limited political influence, high land prices (often driven up
by speculation) and corrupt practices in land-use management that combine to force
people to live in high-risk areas.
The priorities for disaster risk reduction depend on how disaster risk is viewed. If
disaster risk is viewed in terms of economic impacts, the list of ‘vulnerable cities’ is
dominated by wealthy cities in high-income nations. So in the index of risk to multihazards
in large cities developed by Munich Re, 17 of the 20 cities at highest risk are
in high-income countries. This makes sense if gauging the risk for insurers and thus
the value of exposed assets but it makes very limited sense in terms of identifying cities
where populations are particularly at risk from disasters.
Cities in low-income nations do face very high levels of risk – not because of the
monetary value of exposed assets, but due to the inadequacies in their infrastructure,
the poor quality of the housing for much of the population and the weakness of city