Research Finding: Hindsight IS 20-20!

Jörn Birkmann's recent research paper on the United Nations University web site provides a shocking insight into the field of natural disaster vulnerability assessment: they're much more accurate if you conduct them AFTER a natural disaster.

Shocking!

All snarking aside, Birkmann does have some good points. Many of the livelihood impacts of a natural disaster are impossible to assess prior to the onset of a natural disaster, particularly in terms of infrastructure loss, market access, and complications caused by conflict. Impacts should also not be assessed in economic terms alone, but should also take into account social and environmental factors. However, Birkmann also seems to downplay the role of human-induced impacts on livelihoods following a natural disaster, such as the beachfront land-grabs by the high-end tourism industry that followed the 2004 tsunami in Sri Lanka:

Even though the buffer zone is generally considered an important instrument in preventing people from settling too close to the sea, the injustice generated by the handling of the matter (the lack of transparency and lack of reliability resulting from frequently amended rules) created tension and frustration, particularly for people still living within the 100 metre limit, or those being relocated. However, damage patterns in Galle and Batticaloa clearly indicated a strong correlation between risk exposure and damage. Thus, the proposed ban on construction within the immediate proximity of the sea should be taken into consideration in future development plans. However, various exemptions for hotels, for example, have undermined the logic and effectiveness of the buffer zone.