Top
PAPERS
A Critical Review of Haiti Earthquake of 2010: Key
Development Problems and Focused Solutions
Hector MARTIN1, Timothy M. LEWIS2, and Nanika MORAIN MARTIN3
1
Lecturer, University of the West Indies,
(St Augustine, Trinidad)
[email protected]
2
Professor, University of the West Indies
(St Augustine, Trinidad)
[email protected]
3
Director, M&M Dev. Co. Ltd.
'¶$EDGLH7ULQLGDG
[email protected]
In the year 2010, natural disasters were at catastrophic levels leaving death, havoc, devastation and
displacement in its wake; demonstrating the need for increased focus on disaster management. Integral
to reducing this impact and a primary focus point to disaster management is the evaluation of risk and
vulnerability. This paper presents a systematic evaluation of Haiti and examines the pressure and
release (PAR) model in the context of the earthquake of 2010. An evaluation of the cause and effect of
the disaster is also undertaken; which in turn predicted risk factors.
The evaluation assumes that disasters are caused by the intersecting of two opposing forces: the
process generated vulnerability, and physical exposure to hazards. Increasing pressure can come from
either; it was shown that vulnerability has to be reduced to relieve the pressure. Vulnerability was
evaluated in three levels: root causes, dynamic pressures and unsafe conditions. The reverse of the
progression of vulnerability provided areas where solutions can be focus to improve safety.
Keywords: disaster, vulnerability assessment, pressure and release model
`
1. INTRODUCTION
The Caribbean, located at latitude 10-300 N is bombarded yearly by hurricane forces. In addition to its
peculiar location, it is bounded by tectonic plates which contribute to the occurrence of earthquakes,
volcanoes, and tectonic tsunami. It is a fact that each year Caribbean countries are at risk to natural
hazards which results in significant losses and environmental damage. Charvériat (2000) estimated that
within Latin America and the Caribbean, damages from natural disaster have reached US$3.5 billion
annually leaving a death toll of 45,000.
Haiti is located in the northern region of the Caribbean. On January 12, 2010, the country was hit by a
7.0 magnitude on the Richter scale earthquake, where 316,000 persons were killed and more than 9
million affected (my web 2011). The impacts of this disaster resulted in the disruption of the society, with
environmental effects that reshaped the entire landscape; leaving a trail of falling trees and accumulated
debris in need of collection, sorting, treatment, and disposal. Also, there were economic impacts as
catastrophic damage to infrastructure and abysmal property damage were severe and subsequently hinder
economic activity to the country. The social impacts of this disaster were loss of life, epidemics that left
many communities disrupted and hundreds of thousands of people displaced. In comparison, Chile was
struck by an earthquake magnitude 8.8 in February of the same year; more than 2 million people were
affected and deaths totaled 708 persons (Xinhua 2010). More recently, March 2011 marked one of the
worst earthquakes; to hit Japan in 140 years. This was a 9.0 magnitude earthquake which brought with it a
－ 33 －
Top
PAPERS
tsunami killing 15,698 persons and 4,666 reported missing (Vervaeck and Daniell 2011). Of the three
locations, Haiti was impacted by the lowest magnitude earthquake but had the highest death toll and total
number affected; even though, the magnitude of the Chile earthquake was 700 times stronger than that of
the Haiti earthquake. This is rather contrary to the notion that the damages should be greater as the
magnitude increases, all being equal; but are all things equal? In addition, the Haiti earthquake was more
than twice as lethal as any previous magnitude-7.0 event (Bilha 2011). Our assessment must therefore
examine these anomalies; in order to determine what the key contributors toward Haiti susceptibility to
earthquake are.
One of the principal challenges in the determination of susceptibility is the quantification of conditions
both pre and post disaster. This was evident in the collection of reliable statistics of the total killed as
witnessed by the fact that estimates of this number ranged from (200- WKRXVDQG ³international
HVWLPDWHV´ DQG WKRXVDQG ³+DLWL HVWLPDWH´ (NYT 2012). Additionally, there was no national
tracking system to monitor the movements (or the returns) of displaced persons throughout the country.
The intended evaluation model for the identification of a solution for Haiti must therefore take these
challenges into consideration.
This report aims to critically evaluate +DLWL¶V vulnerability towards earthquake and recommend
measures to reduce the probable future devastating impact. To achieve this aim, the pressure and release
(PAR) model will be utilized to track the progression of vulnerability by addressing the underlying causes
as issues, and analyzing the nature of hazards molded by a series of dynamic pressures. This leads to safer
conditions which facilitate the preparation of the community to dealing with disasters. The PAR Disaster
Model explains disaster from a macro perspective. It indicates how risk to disaster can be reduced by
employing preventative and mitigation actions.
2. PAR MODEL AND VULNERABILITY
Risk is a function of hazard and vulnerability. Wisner et al. (2007, Kindle Locations 1581-1583,)
lamented that vulnerability refers to the potential for casualty, destruction, damage, disruption or other
form of loss in a particular element: risk combines this with the probable level of loss to be expected from
a predictable magnitude of hazard (which can be considered as the manifestation of the agent that
produces the loss). The key to understanding disaster is therefore an understanding of vulnerability.
Blaikie, et al. (1994) defines vulnerability as the characteristics of a person or group in terms of their
capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a disaster. In essence, vulnerability
is the potential for loss and is the only identifiable attribute which can characterize a person or group
pre-disaster, during the event, and post disaster. In addition, vulnerability is time dependent to some
degree and can be measured in terms of the damage to future livelihoods and not just as what happens to
life and property at the time of the hazard event (Blaikie, et al. 1994).Therefore, any model which truly
addresses disaster management must include vulnerability as its cornerstone. Vulnerability involves a
combinatioQRIIDFWRUVWKDWGHWHUPLQHWKHGHJUHHWRZKLFKVRPHRQH¶VOLIHDQGOLYHOLKRRGDUHSXWDWULVNE\
a discrete and identifiable event in nature or in society (Blaikie, et al. 1994). It is the capacity to suffer
harm and react adversely (Kates 1985). Timmerman (1981) emphasizes that the degree and quality of the
DGYHUVHUHDFWLRQDUHFRQGLWLRQHGE\DV\VWHP¶VUHVLOLHQFHDPHDVXUHRIDV\VWHP¶VFDSDFLW\WRDEVRUEDQG
recover from the event). Consequently, the prescriptive and normative response to vulnerability is to
formulate a model which lessen exposure, enhance coping capacity, intensify recovery potential and
augment damage control by private and public means (Watts and Bohle 1993).
The distinction of the type of disaster model to be utilized in a given scenario is more profound in its
efficacy when reacting to disasters with severe time constraints. Disaster management models can be
categorized as: logical, integrated, causes, and others (Asghar et al 2006). The PAR model is classified as
a causal model, since it is not based on the idea of defining stages in a disaster, but simplifies this process
through the suggestion of some underlying causes of disasters through the analysis of the nature of the
－ 34 －
Top
PAPERS
hazard. This simplification distinguishes a critical element in the assessment of the complex interactions
of the disaster stages; an essential criteria in the measurement of the usefulness of disaster models as
noted by Kelly (1998). Models which follow the rudimentary logic of the disaster management cycle
truncate the process into discrete separable stages which is atypical of the actual unraveling of a disaster.
The challenge arising from this truncation is to determine when each stage ends and when another begins.
The PAR model overcomes these limitations through the focus on the pressure before, during and after
the event without distinguishing each stage; hence, the processes of improvement conceived are
implemented continuously.
The PAR model is used primarily to address social groups facing disaster events which emphasize
distinctions in vulnerability by different exposure units such as social class and ethnicity (Turner II et al.
2003). The Haiti earthquake of 2010 and its impact on that country demonstrated the high vulnerability of
people in disasteU VLWXDWLRQV ZKHQ WKHUH DUH PDQ\ H[LVWLQJ ³SUHGLVSRVLQJ´ IDFWRUV LQ SODFH The model
allows the community to identify such predisposing factors and correct them in order to reduce
vulnerability and the overall impact of natural hazards. Highlighting the vulnerability of countries to
natural disasters can serve to shed light on the issue, identify sectors of the economy or society that are
particularly at risk, and aid in planning to mitigate the effects of future events (Crowards 2000). The
usefulness of the PAR model was put into focus when Trobe and Venton (2003) noted:
³The WUDGLWLRQDO GLVDVWHU PDQDJHPHQW µPRGHO¶ FDQ EH XQKHOSIXO DV LW IDLOV WR LQFOXGH WKH
underlying causes of disasters that construct risk and vulnerability. « the wider
development community should get involved in disaster risk reduction .....because of root
causes, not just how to tackle the disaster when it happens. Therefore, to overcome «« a
ODFN RI µRYHUDOO YLVLRQ¶ « emphasis should be placed on highlighting the root causes of
disasters such as poverty and other forms of vulnerability.´
The PAR model does not provide a detailed and theoretically informed analysis of the precise
interactions of environment and society at the point when the event occurs (Wisner et al. 2004). While the
PAR model does not quantify vulnerability in a manner in which it is relevant to the assessment and
quantification of risk and is unable to address the occurrence of multiple hazards. It is a qualitative
assessment which has the advantage of identifying areas in need of further focus. Therefore, this
characteristic will be further explored in the evaluation of Haiti to determine primary focus areas.
3. THE CASE OF HAITI
The pressure and release model (see figure 1) shows the progression of vulnerability of the Haiti
earthquake, the risk is crunched between the progression and the hazard. The primary impact was the
earthquake but Haiti also experienced secondary impacts such as the cholera epidemic; which sickened
nearly 500,000 persons across Haiti and killed nearly 7,000 (McNeil Jr. 2012). Tertiary impact includes
violent attacks as UN peacekeepers were suspected of introducing cholera.
Critical unsafe conditions, dynamic pressures and root causes for the Haiti 2010 earthquake disaster
were obtained from secondary data sources and are presented below:
Unsafe Conditions
x
x
Uncontrolled illegal housing development in vulnerable areas such as hillsides and flood plains.
Because of the low per capita GDP of $1,300 (CIA Fact Book 2011) people building homes have no
option but to build using the most affordable materials and the cheapest and quickest building
methods; which often prove to be unsuitable.
－ 35 －
Top
x
x
PAPERS
Haitian roads (4,545 km in total) are in poor condition. Eighty percent of the paved roads and 96
percent of the remaining primary roads require repair or rehabilitation (Archi 1995). These unpaved
and poor roads result in limited access and also increase vehicle operating costs.
In 1990 only 39 percent of the 5.9 million residents had adequate access to water and only 24 percent
to sanitation (Us Army Corps of Engineers 1999). The lack of essential basic amenities such as water
or sanitation is outside the reach of government and public services and in 2012 this still poses a
challenge to Haitis development.
Dynamic Pressures
x
x
x
There is little or no urban planning in Port-au-Prince to control settlement development and
regularization of rural poor immigrants into the city in need of a better way of life. There is a shortage
of housing and those that exist are of poor quality (Oxfam 2010).
%\WKHPLGGOHRIWKHWKFHQWXU\+DLWL¶Vagriculture policy fueled significant de-forestation and soil
degradation that was the workings of sugar plantations.
The government lacked the resources or the will to reverse this long-term man-made ecological
disaster. Farmers over-farmed the soil in order to make a bare subsidence and, in recent years, a
population too poor to buy kerosene or bottle gas turned to forest-derived charcoal as their only
source of cooking fuel.
Root Causes
x
x
x
x
,Q WKH ODWH WK FHQWXU\ +DLWL ZDV )UDQFH¶V PRVW YDOXDEOHFRORQ\ SURGXFLQJ R RIWKe sugar and
60% of the coffee consumed in Europe. In 1791 the slaves of Haiti rebelled and, under the leadership
of slave-JHQHUDO 7RXVVDLQW /¶2YHUWXUH WKH\ GHIHDWHG 1DSROHRQ¶V DUPLHV %HWZHHQ DQG Haiti was forced to pay enormous reparations to France in return for diplomatic recognition. To
obtain the required amount of money Haiti borrowed extreme sums from the US, German and French
banks (Oxfam 2010). This made Haiti a heavily indebted country.
,QWKHHDUO\WKFHQWXU\WKH86$¶VSROLF\WRZDUGVHaiti was to use force and occupation to ensure
that Haiti stuck to its repayment schedules (Oxfam 2010) +DLWL¶V GLFWDWRUV LQVWHDG RI IRFXVLQJ RQ
+DLWL¶VGHYHORSPHQWUHVRUWHGWRSHUVRQDOSOXQGHU
RI+DLWL¶V9 million population lives below the poverty line of $2/day of which 54% in abject
poverty; unemployment rate is 45% (CIA Fact Book 2012).
The amplification of surface seismic waves crossing the soft sedimentary plains on which most
dwellings were constructed contributed to their collapse. Because of this, and the westward
propagation of the rupture, damage was less on the bedrock hills south of the city, and far more on the
coastal plains near Léogane 30 kilometres to the west (Bilha 2011).
Risk reduction is the purpose of hazard managers. Risk reduction will include some mechanism to
reduce vulnerability. Vulnerability reduction may include changes to achieve safer conditions either
directly or indirectly by reducing dynamic pressures and addressing root causes that result in unsafe
conditions. Figure 2 illustrates how safety can be enhanced through the reduction of dynamic pressure and
root cause. If we consider the Haiti 2010 earthquake and follow the chain of explanation that links
vulnerability to the specific physical trigger that creates a disaster, reversing the PAR model, starting with
³XQVDIH FRQGLWLRQV´ ZH FDQ LGHQWLI\ ZK\ +DLWL ZDV VR YXOQHUDEOH WR WKH 1DWXUDO +D]DUG Some of the
proposed safe conditions include:
Structural
y Revision of Seismic Building Code and maps
y Retrofit of existing Buildings
y Training of best international practices, then, provide supervision for the construction of new
Buildings
－ 36 －
Top
y
PAPERS
Development of safer infrastructure and develop masonry as a locally appropriate construction
technology
Non-Structural
y Develop master urban plans with a bottom up approach to incorporate the views at the
community levels. Implement land-use planning and regulation including the compulsory
purchase of ruined tenements by government.
y Implement disaster preparedness planning at the local and community level
4. CONCLUSION
Countries economic, social and political climate are severely affected after such destruction by a
natural hazard. It often leaves the country exposed to other threats as seen in Haiti which experienced a
severe outbreak of cholera after the earthquake devastation. While natural disasters have a lethal
reputation, secondary effects such as, food shortage, genocide, illness, civil and political violence in
some countries still count for the highest numbers of deaths. Even more devastating is the extent of
human suffering and displacement, which prevails long after the disaster has occurred, as exhibited by the
number of persons living in camps in Haiti. In these instances it is often the poor who are most adversely
affected.
From this review it was found that the most critical factors contributing to Haiti high susceptibility to
earthquake are:
ƒ poor construction and materials,
ƒ lack of planning and building regulations
ƒ lack of awareness that earthquakes are a significant threat
ƒ Abject poverty
Emphasis must therefore be placed on improving these key areas and equitably distribute wealth, which
has a history of political corruption.
－ 37 －
Top
PAPERS
Progression of Vulnerability
Root Causes
-Poverty (80% people living below
Dynamic Pressures
Unsafe Conditions
Risk
Hazard
Lack of:
Physical
poverty line, 54% live in abject
-Seismograph stations.
poverty)
-Attention to earthquake resistance
-High death rate due AIDS/HIV,
-Poor design and construction of
malaria, respiratory infections.
buildings to possibility of earthquakes
Environm
ment:
-Poor construction practices
-Poor marine and costal
management systems
-Lack of basic health care.
earthquake
- Awareness that Haiti was vulnerable
-Deforestation and
-High exposure to infectious
earth
disasters.
-Flooding devastation in 2008
-75% of Haiti household lack
- Effective education systems
-Over farming
running water
-Social support structures
seismic waves crossing the
(32 coup).
Macro Forces:
soft sedimentary plains
-Struggle for political power.
-Désertification
Economic Environment:
-Education Adult Literacy: men
-Deforestation
54%; women 50% (Foreign and
-Large population
-Haiti is the poorest country
as
Commonwealth Office 2012)
per
the
Human
-Migration
Development Index;
-Large slum city in capital
-Between 1825 and 1947 Haiti was
-Government corruption
-Densely populated areas
forced to pay enormous reparations to
-GDP of 11.53 billion or 1,300
-Extremely high food prices
France in return for diplomatic
per person.
recognition. To obtain the required
Ideologies:
-Low income levels
amount of money Haiti borrowed
History of corrupt political
-30-40% foreign aid makes up
extreme sums from US, German and
system and government.
government budget.
French banks. This made it a heavily
Corruption 168 of 180 countries
indebted country.
(Transparency international
Fig.1 The progression of vulnerability for earthquake hazards
－ 38 －
6.2
surface
which
caused the energy to be
released very close to the
-Disaster management systems.
- Amplification of surface
-Long history of political violence
was
miles in depth below the
to earthquakes and other natural
desertification
diseases
The depth of the Haiti
surface.
There
was
ground
shaking
that
lasted
30-40
seconds,
several aftershocks also
followed
periodically
measuring about 4.0 ²
5.0 in magnitude. Total
damages
earthquake
estimated
$8-$14 billion
of
the
was
between
Haiti
Earthquake
7.0
Magnitude
Top
PAPERS
Progression of safety
Address Root Causes
Reduce Dynamic Pressures
Achieve safe Condition
Physical
Development of:
Increase the access of
Reduce Hazard
Environment:
vulnerable groups to:
ƒ
Local community groups to
ƒ
ƒ
Power
demand effective
ƒ
Resources and
reconstruction.
Improve seismic building
codes
and
their
enforcement
ƒ
Local institution
Through the
ƒ
Training and education
democratization of
ƒ
Enhanced legal framework for
structure
ƒ
Reduce building densities
by
changing land
use
pattern.
governance
the facilitation and regulation
ƒ
Provide
incentives
to
of international disaster aid.
strengthen
ƒ
existing
Ethical standards in public
buildings
Challenge any:
life
ƒ
ƒ
Reduce
Ideology, economic
ƒ
system or political
Macro Forces:
system that
ƒ
Diversify
rural
income
Press freedom
opportunities
Risk
Improve Seismic
hazard mapping
Automated post
Improve rural economic
event
Resilient local economy:
increases
opportunities to reduce
vulnerability.
urbanization
ƒ
Strengthen livelihoods
Public Actions:
ƒ
Re-forestation
ƒ
Develop and implement
ƒ
Improve
preparedness
disaster
and
health program
planning. Through school
programs
Fig.2 Risk reduction mechanisms for Haiti
－ 39 －
notification
Top
PAPERS
5. REFERENCES
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
Archi, R.K.: Emergency Economic Recovery Program. From the United Nations International Report, Vol. I, no. A1, 1995,
Available at: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43a/050.html, Accessed March 2012.
Asghar, S., Damminda A., and Leonid, C.: Comprehensive Conceptual Model for Disaster Management. 2006, Available at:
http://reliefweb.int/organization/jha, Accessed March 2012.
Bilha,
R.:
Lessons
from
the
Haiti
earthquake
2011,
Available
at:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7283/full/463878a.html , Accessed March 2012
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., and Wisner, B.: At Risk: Natural Hazards, 3HRSOH¶V9ulnerability and Disasters. London:
Routledge, 1994.
Central
Intelligence
Agency
(CIA):
The
world
Fact
Book.
2011,
Available
at:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ha.html Accessed March 2012.
Charvériat, C.: Natural Disasters in Latin America and the Caribbean: An Overview of Risk. Working Paper #434.
Inter-American Development Bank: Washington, 2000.
Crowards, T.: Comparative Vulnerabilities to Natural Disasters in the Caribbean, Paper presented at the
OAS/USDE-NOAA/CSC on Workshop on Vulnerability Assessment Techniques, Charleston, South Carolina, 20-22. 2000.
Available at:http://www.oas.org/cdmp/document/mitiplan/mitapend.pdf Accesses October 22, 2011.
Disaster
Assessment
Portal:
Techniques
Used
in
Disaster
Risk
Assessment,
Available
at:
http://www.disasterassessment.org/section.asp?id=4, Accessed on October 21, 2011.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, North & Central America and Caribbean: Haiti Country information. 2012. Available at:
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/north-central-america/haiti/
Accessed March 2012.
Kates, R.W.: The Interaction of Climate and Society. New York: Wiley, 1985.
Kelly, C.: Simplifying Disasters: Developing a model for Complex Non-linear Events, Proc. of International Conference on
Disaster Management: Crisis and Opportunity: Hazard Management and Disaster Preparedness in Australasia and the
Pacific Region. Queensland, Australia. 25-28, 1998.
McNeil Jr., D.G.: +DLWL &KROHUD (SLGHPLF¶V )LUVW 9LFWLP ,GHQWLILHG DV 5LYHU %DWKHU :KR )RUVRRN &OHDQ :DWHU, The New
York
Times,
2012,
Available
at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/health/haitian-cholera-epidemic-traced-to-first-known-victim.html?_r=1,
Accessed
March 2012.
MyWebs: Haiti Earthquake Facts 86, 2011, Available at: http://mywebs.hubpages.com/hub/Haiti-Earthquake-Facts,
Accessed March 2012.
New
York
Times
(NYT):
Haiti,
2012.
Available
at:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/haiti/index.html?offset=0&s=newest,
Accessed
February, 2012
Oxfam
GB.:
Haiti
Earthquake
Response,
Arup
Assignment
Report,
2010,
Available
at:
http://www.eqclearinghouse.org/20100112-haiti/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/20100522_ARUP_Haiti.pdf, Accessed March
2012.
Timmerman, P.: Vulnerability, resilience and the collapse of society: a review of models and possible climatic applications.
Toronto, Institute for Environmental Studies, 1981.
Trobe, S.L. and Venton, P.: Natural Disaster Risk Reduction. The policy and practice of selected institutional donors.
Tearfund
Research
project.
2003.
Available
at:
http://www.tearfund.org/webdocs/Website/Campaigning/Policy%20and%20research/Natural%20Disaster%20Risk%20Redu
ction%20research.pdf, Accessed February 2012.
Turner II, B.L., et al.: A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science, Proc. of the Natural Academy of
Science, USA 100, no. 14, pp.8074-8079, 2003.
US Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District and Topographic Engineering Center. Water Resources Assessment of Haiti,
1999,
Available
at:
http://www.sam.usace.army.mil/en/wra/Haiti/Haiti%20Water%20Resources%20Assessment%20English.pdf,
Accessed
March 2012.
Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., and Davis, I.: $W5LVN1DWXUDO+D]DUGV3HRSOH¶V9XOQHUDELOLW\DQG'isasters. 2nd ed.
First published in 1994 by Routledge. London. This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. Taylor and
Francis. Kindle Edition 2007
Vervaeck, A. and Daniell, J.: Japan Tohoku tsunami and earthquake: The death toll is climbing again! 2011, Available at:
http://earthquake-report.com/2011/08/04/japan-tsunami-following-up-the-aftermath-part-16-june/, Accessed March 2012.
Xinhua.:
708
killed
in
Chilean
earthquake,
2010,
Available
at:
http://www.china.org.cn/world/chilequake/2010-03/01/content_19493303.htm, Accessed March 2012.
－ 40 －