{"id":4564,"date":"2012-04-03T03:17:46","date_gmt":"2012-04-03T03:17:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.agu.org\/landslideblog\/?p=4564"},"modified":"2012-04-03T03:35:08","modified_gmt":"2012-04-03T03:35:08","slug":"the-need-for-investment-in-large-scale-natural-hazards-research-programmes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.agu.org\/landslideblog\/2012\/04\/03\/the-need-for-investment-in-large-scale-natural-hazards-research-programmes\/","title":{"rendered":"The need for investment in large-scale natural hazards research programmes"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>It is an exciting day in the world of physics as the committee meets to decide the location of the <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Square_Kilometre_Array\">Square Kilometre Array<\/a>, a giant new radio telescope that will improve resolution by 50 times compared with existing instruments.\u00a0 This is a truly epic piece of science &#8211; it will for example collect data at a rate that exceeds the capacity of the entire global internet at present!\u00a0 The costs and timescales are also remarkable to observe &#8211; the project was first conceived in the early 1990&#8217;s, with construction expected to be complete in 2024.\u00a0 The estimated cost is 1.5 billion Euros ($2 billion).<\/p>\n<p>This instrument is designed to address some really interesting scientific questions &#8211; for example mapping the large-scale structure of the cosmos.\u00a0 It is a part of a series of very large physics-based science experiments and facilities, including the <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/European_Extremely_Large_Telescope\">European Extremely Large Telescope<\/a> (budget: 1.1 billion Euros) and of course the <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Large_Hadron_Collider#Cost\">Large Hadron Collider<\/a> (budget: 7.5 billion Euros).<\/p>\n<p>Now, natural hazards kill large numbers of people and inflict huge costs on society.\u00a0 This graph for example, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.emdat.be\/\">which uses EM-DAT data<\/a>, shows the direct losses associated with natural disasters since 1980.\u00a0 Note that this excludes the multiple indirect costs, which would multiply these totals many times over:<\/p>\n<p><a rel=\"attachment wp-att-4565\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.agu.org\/landslideblog\/2012\/04\/03\/the-need-for-investment-in-large-scale-natural-hazards-research-programmes\/12_04-costs-1\/\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-4565\" title=\"12_04 costs 1\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.agu.org\/landslideblog\/files\/2012\/04\/12_04-costs-1.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"485\" height=\"294\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.agu.org\/landslideblog\/files\/2012\/04\/12_04-costs-1.jpg 485w, https:\/\/blogs.agu.org\/landslideblog\/files\/2012\/04\/12_04-costs-1-300x181.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 485px) 100vw, 485px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a really substantial, and rising cost, to society.\u00a0 There is widespread concern about either the trillion-dollar earthquake (in fact some estimates are that a large event in Tokyo could cost up to $2 trillion) or the million fatality earthquake (for example a very large event in the Himalayas could inflict this level of loss), both of which are statistically entirely possible.<\/p>\n<p>So why is it that natural hazards research does not attract the level of large-scale investment that goes into physics?\u00a0 Allow me to cite an example.\u00a0 Two of the UK Research Councils &#8211; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nerc.ac.uk\/\">NERC<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.esrc.ac.uk\/\">ESRC<\/a>, are currently funding a major new research programme entitled <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nerc.ac.uk\/research\/programmes\/resilience\/\">Increasing Resilience to Natural Hazards<\/a>, with two strands (earthquake and volcano).\u00a0 This is a genuinely exciting initiative, which has induced the creation of a raft of new consortia across natural hazards research in the UK.\u00a0 It is hoped that it will make a substantial impact in reducing losses from natural hazards over the next decade.\u00a0 But the total cost of the two majors grants that will be awarded is about \u00a36 million ($10 million).\u00a0 Now, this is a large sum of money in anyone&#8217;s terms, and this programme is both ambitious and impressive, and it is very welcome.\u00a0 But in comparison with the investment in physics research it is really rather paltry.<\/p>\n<p>If $10 million can make a large impact, one can only imagine the impact that a coordinated investment of $2 billion could have.\u00a0 I believe that such an investment could genuinely induce a step change in both our understanding of natural hazards, and in our management of them.\u00a0 The benefits to society, in particular in less developed countries, would be tremendous.<\/p>\n<p>So surely it is now time for the natural hazard community to take the lead from the physicists.\u00a0 We should create a large-scale investment plan for a comprehensive, international research effort into natural hazards that is properly resourced and managed.\u00a0 The impact of such a programme could be enormous, but to do will require a long-term perspective and high levels of ambition.<\/p>\n<p>No-one should under-estimate the complexity and difficulty of such an initiative, but this should not deter us.The average direct economic cost of natural disasters over the last five years has been $145 billion.\u00a0 Let&#8217;s that losses remain at this level (and of course they are in reality rising quickly).\u00a0 If the research programme were to cut these losses by just 10% per annum, the saving would be $14.5 billion per year in direct costs alone, or $290 billion over 20 years. That would make the investment extraordinarily good value for money.\u00a0 Perhaps as a scientific community we need to be a little more self-confident!<\/p>\n<!-- AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on the_content --><!-- AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on the_content -->","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Today a decision will be made on the $2 billion square kilometre array; we should aim for a similar level of investment in natural hazards <!-- AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on wp_trim_excerpt --><!-- AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on wp_trim_excerpt --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":4565,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[608],"tags":[469,614,17],"class_list":["post-4564","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-research-project","tag-featured","tag-nataural-hazards","tag-research"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.agu.org\/landslideblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4564","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.agu.org\/landslideblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.agu.org\/landslideblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.agu.org\/landslideblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/22"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.agu.org\/landslideblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4564"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.agu.org\/landslideblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4564\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.agu.org\/landslideblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4565"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.agu.org\/landslideblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4564"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.agu.org\/landslideblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4564"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.agu.org\/landslideblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4564"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}