Dear Muhammad , I agree with much you wrote:

• There is nothing such as a natural disaster, disasters are events of society.
• It is often that communities are not well prepared to face hazards happening frequently

However I hesitate to use ethical categories ("are responsible") to make any judgement, because:

• nature cannot be responsible in an ethical way. Nature can cause something happening through extreme events.
• human's responsibility might be limited: the might not have the means to prepare adequately against the forces of nature (a category 5 hurricane) is a destructive event against which society can protect only to a very limited degree, similarly to tsunamis.......

What can and should be done is to prepare as good as possible. This includes the assumption that still preparations cannot be 100 percent successful, meaning that there always will be disasters, as the forces of nature at times are just far too big.

Still what is needed is to become better prepared: this is also as it seems that the hazards become more powerful, and when communities had knowledge of how to withstand these forces the forces in the meanwhile might have become too big so that more intervention from outside is needed to enhance resilience. It is surely is a crucial aspect to gather much more knowledge than it is available right now.

Dear Muhammad , I agree with much you wrote:

• There is nothing such as a natural disaster, dsasters are events of society.
• It is often that communities are not well prepared to face hazards happening frequently

However I hesitate to use ethical categories ("are responsible") to make any judegment, because:

• nature cannot be responsible in an ethical way. Nature can cause something happening through extreme events.
• human's responsibility might be limited: the might not have the means to prepare adequately against the forces of nature (a category 5 hurricane) is a destructive event against which society can protect only to a very limited degree, simiolarly to tsunamis.......

What can and should be done is to prepaare as good as possible. This includes the assumtion that still preparations cannot be 100 percent successful, meaning that there always will be disasters, as the forces of nature at times are just far too big.

Still what is needed is to become better prepared: this is also as it seems that the hazards become more powerful, and when communities had knowldege of how to withstand these forces the forces in the meanwhile might have become too big so that more intervention from outside is needed to enhance resilience. This surely is a crucial aspects to gather much more knowledge than it is available right now.

Eberhard Weber

Thank you for your comment to make it clearer for me.

Regards

Muhammad Sajjad: I fuly agree with Eberhard Weber. If you like to read about human vulnerability, hazards and disasters there is an excellent book : "At Risk" written by Blaikie, Canon

I agree with Eberhard Weber. In Nepal, every year there are thousands of households affected by floods with many casualties as well. However, in spite of migrating to the safer place they again come to riverbanks and they are always at risk of disaster, by the act of themselves.

@Gabriel,

Thank you for the suggestion. I will have a look for sure.

Dear Muhammad Sajjad

Indeed upto some extent your consent is right but I would like to request you to think” WHAT ARE ECOSYSTEMS AND HOW DO HUMANS INTERACT WITH THEM”. (Holistic and multidisciplinary approach is required) Remember we are a part of ecosystem which is“dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit”. This ecosystem is influenced by many factors like sunshine, etc. Many disasters in past which cause devastation of civilization was not only due to humans interference , some time its was due to other factors like solar millennium, earthquakes and others.

If we take a closer look at human-nature interactions in the course of evolution, we see that these interactions changed dramatically While our early ancestors had to rely on their environment and adapt to the natural conditions, tribes of Homo habilis who lived around 2.33 to 1.44 million years ago already developed tools such as choppers and hand axes. These inventions can be seen as initial steps for conquering, occupying and partly destroying the natural environment. However, the effects must be seen as rather limited due to low population density and limited geographical expansion. However, the Industrial Revolution was also a major turning point in human/society-nature interactions, as it was accompanied by massive environmental degradation at the global scale. So whether it is coastal community or people living in flood plains of INDIA or Nepal, situation become worsen because we forget nature in planning or to think Eco-DRR. society and disasters interact with each other in a number of ways. Disasters cause massive damage to the society, while degraded environments exacerbate disaster impacts on society. Remember disasters are nature supreme weapon, it will keep occurring. Responding to disasters often leads to additional environmental impacts, while investments in sound environmental management, especially in disaster prevention and post-disaster recovery stages, can reduce disaster risks and thus contribute to a more resilient and sustainable development. Climate change will likely exacerbate disaster impacts, while environmental management solutions are increasingly being applied for adaptation to climate change

Dear @ Santosh Adhikari

i am totally disagree with you and would like to share some view as i am posted in Indian part of this flood prone area (Madhubani, Bihar).

There are many reasons to why people choose to live in areas who have a history with natural disasters. One reason can be because they are poor. Lower in-come people might not have enough money to move to a place with less of a chance of being hit by a natural disaster. People might also live in a hazardous area because they have a job there. Places like Indonesia , Philippines, Nepal, India get hit by natural disasters often, but some people choose to live their because of farming. There are 3 types of approaches to why people live in a hazardous area. One is a Fatalistic Approach. This is when a person has no other option but to live in a certain area. It could be because of economic reasons. They also like to think like, 'if it happens it happens.' Another way is an Acceptance Approach. This is when someone chooses to live in a certain area because it is a sight for tourism or because of their job. It can also be due to natural resources and energy availability. The Adaptation Approach is the final reason why people would live in a hazardous area. It mainly consist of reasons like the technology, prediction, prevention, and protection. A way to look at why people would live in a certain area is because there really isn't anywhere on earth that has no chance being hit by a natural disaster. Although, some countries do have less of a chance, while some are at greater risks. Different people have different reasons why to live where they live. It could be because they are used to the culture and like the scenery. Either way, people choose to live in certain areas because they have a reason.

I also request you to spend some time with these people. believe me my friend, the pain of migration is heart melting and you will breakdown with tears by hearing their experience. together you and me, can make a difference .....

@Kundan Sagar

Thanks a lot for your informative comment. I am already working in the same field you mentioned. We are of view that natural hazards are a continious phenomenon which will keep going on. However, the degradation of environment such as conversion and depletion of coastal natural systems to impervious surfaces are putting more and more communities on higher risk. The [over]development of coastal regions particularly the hazard prone regions is critical. More and more people are attracted to coastal regions due to availability of resources which also put pressure on environmental resources. This also leads to reduction of ecosystem services.

I am working on the Natural hazards, community resilience and the role of natural habitats along the coastlines to enhance this resilience. I will upload my recent paper very soon on the similar topic.

Regards.

Take Nicaragua and Honduras people: Did they cause the hurricane that made them suffer recently? Or are other people to blame instead?

Well Nicaraguans and Honduras people are not the only ones using fossil fuels in the world and they are not that many people. We have the North Americans in the vicinity polluting the air like crazy and causing the ocean to warm up. Once the ocean gets warm, it has to move the heat somewhere. All the ocean knows is to evaporate, making clouds and giving tremendous amount of heat into the air which eventually becomes a hurricane.

Yes human do responsible as you said and one needs to understand the difference between hazard and disaster. Moreover, researchers are also expected to pay attention on suggestions with a view to reduce the risk to society, particularly the bottom line society. Hundreds of papers are flooding on the subject, with extremely low number out of them are actually highlighting on solutions/suggestions and emphasizing more on reasons for the disaster; though the latter is necessary, the former is the one actually expected for the administrative machinery or the people in need!