1. Introduction to Disaster Risks

So, also here is another chart you can see from 1950 to 2005, the number of events that flood is increasing, storm also are increasing, earthquake is almost the same as from 1950’s to 2005, you cannot see much huge differences but other disasters you can see they are increasing very prominently.

This chunk describes a historical overview of disaster events from 1950 to 2005. It emphasizes that while certain disasters like earthquakes have remained relatively constant, other disasters such as floods and storms have increased significantly. The increase in these events highlights the growing threat of climate-related disasters.

Imagine watching a movie where natural disasters are the antagonists. In the earlier parts of the movie (1950s), the problem (disasters) was manageable. However, as the movie progresses, you see more frequent disasters occurring — like a character who transforms from a minor issue to a major threat as the storyline unfolds. This mirrors how climate change might be causing an increase in disasters like floods and storms in our real lives.

So, we are talking about hazards that this landslide or this stone when it is exposed to heavy rainfall or earthquake, it can have some potentiality to cause human injury or loss or property damage. It may cause, not necessarily that it will cause.

This section introduces the concept of a hazard. It begins with an example of a landslide triggered by heavy rainfall or an earthquake, illustrating its potential to cause harm. It clarifies that just because a hazard exists doesn't mean it will always lead to a disaster. The focus is on the potential effects that hazards can have.

Think of a hazard like a loaded gun. It has the potential to cause harm, but it does not automatically do so unless someone pulls the trigger. Similarly, a landslide or flood is a hazard that can result in injury or damage, but it will only have real consequences if it affects people or property in its path.

Now, as I said that we have avalanches and we have landslides in Himalayas, we do not care why we do not care, if there is an avalanche, if there landslides in Himalaya.

This chunk highlights differing levels of concern regarding disasters based on their location. It points out that while people may not react to landslides or avalanches in remote areas like the Himalayas, they are significantly more concerned about landslides or earthquakes in populated urban areas. This reflects how human proximity to hazards influences responses to disasters.

Imagine a wildfire raging in a remote forest far away from human settlements. People may not be alarmed because it poses no threat to their safety. However, if that same wildfire starts approaching a nearby town, the urgency and concern levels drastically change, illustrating how distance and location impact concern about hazards.

So, the presence of this person is very important. So, it is not only this person but if we have more settlements, more houses, more people we care more right, maybe here you look, we care more and more because the simple reason is that more and more people and settlements, houses, buildings are there. So, this one we are calling as exposure; the situation of people, infrastructure, housing, production capacities and other tangible human assets located in hazard-prone areas.

This section introduces the concept of 'exposure,' which refers to the presence of people and their properties in areas prone to hazards. It asserts that the more people, infrastructure, and settlements that exist in a hazard-prone area, the greater the concern for potential disaster. Therefore, exposure is determined by the number of assets and people at risk.

Consider the difference between a small village and a bustling city. If a typhoon threatens a small village with few homes, the impact may be less severe compared to a large city with densely packed homes and businesses. A city is more 'exposed' to the risks of the typhoon because it has more people and structures that could be harmed.

Another one is the quantity; how many people or structure or buildings are exposed to the hazard, another one is the amount and type of activities they support.

This chunk examines the factors that define exposure, including the number of structures and people at risk, as well as the types of activities occurring in those areas. It argues that the nature of these activities (agricultural, industrial, etc.) affects how exposure is assessed and understood.

Picture two neighborhoods: one is filled with factories (industrial activities) while the other is primarily residential. A chemical spill in the industrial area might endanger workers and cause different risks compared to damage in the residential area. Thus, the type and amount of activities in each neighborhood shape how vulnerable each area is to disasters.

It also matter that if this hazard would take place at day time, when people are not working, people are working outside, people are not at their home. Or maybe night time when people are sleeping...

This section discusses how the timing of a disaster, whether during the day or night, affects exposure. It points out that at night, more individuals are likely to be at home and potentially more exposed to hazards. This factor further influences how hazardous a situation can become, based on the number of people present at the time.

Think of a concert crowd. During the day, a few people might be out buying snacks or walking around, so exposure to hazards (e.g., an emergency situation) is lower. However, if the same crowd is packed tightly together during a concert at night, a fire or exit blockage would impact more people, highlighting increased risk due to timing.

So, when we are talking about hazard and exposure so, if we say that okay, this much of people are exposed to this disaster, is it enough to define a disaster?

This chunk questions whether the mere count of exposed individuals is sufficient to define the risk of a disaster. It emphasizes that not just the number of people, but also their characteristics (age, socio-economic status, etc.) matters in assessing risk. Vulnerable populations require deeper consideration when evaluating exposure to potential hazards.

Imagine two different towns facing a flood threat: one has a young, working population, while the other comprises mostly elderly individuals. The same flood may pose a greater risk to the elderly town, illustrating that understanding the characteristics of the population is essential when planning for disaster preparedness.

--