The professor and the danger

Domingos Rodrigues, is a professor of geology at the University of Madeira, studies the risk associated with natural disasters. A phenomenon that could be mitigated, if there was a clear commitment on prevention through schools.

How do you do makes the encounter between urban development and geological risks?
Dominic Rodrigues: Today we have a quality of life that we did not had in the past. We have schools, health centers and housing have all that space is available. There are a number of strategic infrastructure such as hospitals and fire headquarters and other no less important in order to live, including nurseries, supermarkets and shopping centers. This has nothing to do with danger. We are not required, just because we have to build, to do so under the embankments. The argument, in terms of building and not having much space to do so is false, does not exist. I’ll give you an example, in February 20^th there was no hotel destroyed, why? Because it is an area where nothing happens. Never will be hit by floods, or other type of mudslides. Some are along the coast and have other problems. The society builds only were there’s a high vulnerability, i.e., when do not understand why and where they should not build. Then these disasters happen. We are entering an archaeological study on natural disasters, whose objective is to realize in 1803, the year that there was a great disaster, for example, what mitigation measures that were adopted. Let's see the difference between this year and 1993. The major disasters change the cultures of peoples. The great religious events are all related to natural disasters. What does this mean? What changes have occurred in the past due to this cultural event? In the story if we talk in global terms, there were civilizations that have disappeared, others have adapted. What is happening? The way of being of the people changes, some will be adapted, faster, others slower, this is evolution. Let's make this 1803 survey, see what steps people have taken to minimize this natural disaster, compared to what we are doing now. The evolution of society depends on this kind of rational decisions, makes an assessment of vulnerability and to what extent people in their behavior changed something. If we reach the conclusion that we are more vulnerable, we will have to take action.

Suppose we introduce a culture of safety in schools, there is one or more generations do not have such tools, then what do we do? The only way is to introduce legislation?
DR: No. A society that is not complying, it will not obey even we enforce the law. This is the big question. A single measure does not work. The question I ask is the following, we have a high number of deaths in road accidents, why? With heavy fines by chance, they slow down? So what can we do? Educating people, as they do in Sweden, which never reach the speed limit because they comply. What can we do? Educating the population. If a person is educated in that sense, that someone will not make a proposal to a Town Hall 500 times, with a project that makes no sense. Citizens want to see approved projects are often the most outlandish possible and still say they’re right. Imagine that none of these proposals appears in the City Council. Good nothing to manage. If all the people when they build their home have a sense of danger and avoid areas at risk, who manages the territory has the easy life, or not? This applies to the whole society, from the political ruling class to the anonymous citizen.

The solution is a land management plans that are widely discussed and that people knew what the rules are. What happens? People know the law, but what they do? Find ways to get around to it and do not comply, then nothing works. A risk plan solves nothing, is a door, no doubt. Isolated does not work. Why do I need a sophisticated warning system, if people do not give a damn? If I send an SMS to all the population in general, warned not to leave the house because it will rain and people choose to go for a walk, what is the effectiveness of this measure? Zero. The people are guilty? Obviously not. We have to educate young people to have proper behavior, whether in accordance with the situations in which they live and in relation to natural disasters, or traffic accidents. The approach must be multidisciplinary, invest in education, alert systems and legislation. Were t young people in schools address these issues directly related to their community? No, there is talk of Japan and Chile, and what is happening here? This is not even taken into account, what are our limitations. In case of fire, people complain, but the vast majority does not clear the forest around the houses. It is a matter of managing behavior. The risk in the fund is to manage the way we behave in society. If citizens comply to the letter, the degree of their vulnerability decreases. There is never a zero risk.

And contingency plans?
DR: They are to be approved and then work. Some better, others not, because authorities apply. The documentation exists. If there is a public discussion, what happens? Probably no one shows up. When discussing the municipal master plans, people just want to know is whether they can build or not. Are not concerned about anything else and then complain. The people have to know what are the limitations in where they live, not just to worry if you can eat this or that. It's raining, we not move from one place to another. The only proposal that exists in legal terms is the whip. It is not the path we must follow. The focus should be on education and schools. It's knowing how to behave before a natural disaster.

Even more in this island, taking into account the terrain.
DR: It's not about that. If you go to Switzerland, they also have a fragmented terrain and more they have snow and that I know off they do not live badly. The Japanese live in a terrible country, however, just see the movies of the last earthquake, they told then and they behaved well. Died, but if it was in a country like ours, we were completely devastated. When the tsunami hit the area, we saw cars being swept away, but people moved to higher areas, if it was here they probably stop to take pictures. This is what the problem; people do not have the slightest sense of danger.

But in Madeira raises the question of building on land with slopes, with houses with balconies facing cliffs and garages on the roof. How can you avoid such situations?
DR: It has to do with the proper way to build. I was recently watching an Australian code, we use a lot to of their experience in planning, and they say that a project cannot increase the degree of instability of a given area. It does not mean you cannot build; the intention is that the project concerned, not damaged further the instability of that area, if so cannot be done. They prohibited? No. You must be adequate and have quality. We can have projects in areas that reduce risk. Many of these projects are of poor quality and I do understand that not everyone has the same financial means, and land to build, not everyone is rich. The aim is to find tools to prevent this type of construction in areas at risk. For this there are the housing projects and exchanges of land. No one forces a person to make a poorly made home on a cliff. This type of behavior only arises a level of awareness of risks, which is none. People living in the city, for example, have a very different sense of danger on a certain area, than those who lived there all their life. It makes people very vulnerable. We must have an occupation of the territory adapted to our reality.