CAN WE MAKE MEGACITIES RESILIENT TO NATURAL HAZARDS? Cities and megacities exist by geologic, hydrologic, and atmospheric consent, which can be withdrawn without notice. Vulnerabilities reflect policy flaws with respect to preparedness, protection, response, and recovery. Preparedness, protection, response, and recovery are the most effective measures. But, they are hard to sell to the public and take time to implement.

1. WHAT HISTORY TEACHES
• CITIES AND
MEGACITIES EXIST
BY GEOLOGIC,
HYDROLOGIC, AND
ATMOSPHERIC
CONSENT, WHICH
CAN BE
WITHDRAWN
WITHOUT NOTICE.

2. CAN MEGACITIES BE DISASTER
RESILIENT
ALTHOUGH “BIG” CAN BE VERY
VULNERABLE, WHY NOT

3. QUESTION
• WHAT IS A MEGACITY AND
WHAT MEASURES WILL MAKE IT
LESS VULNERABLE TO THE
POTENTIAL DISASTER AGENTS
OF NATURAL HAZARDS?

4. MEGACITIES IN 1900
WORLD POPULATION:
1.6 BILLION
•
•
•
•
•
TOKYO: 21.9 M
NEW YORK: 15.6 M
MEXICO CITY: 13.9 M
SAO PAULO: 12.5 M
SHANGHAI: 11.7
•
•
•
•
•
•
OSAKA: 10.0 M
BUENOS AIRES: 9.9 M
LOS ANGELES: 9.5 M
CALCUTA 9.0 M
BEIJING 9.0 M
SOURCE: THE
POPULATION
INSTITUTE 2/3/01

5. MEGACITIES IN 2000
WORLD POPULATION:
6 BILLION
•
•
•
•
•
TOKYO: 25.4 M
BOMBAY: 18.6 M
MEXICO CITY: 18.3 M
SAO PAULO: 18.0 M
NEW YORK: 16.7 M
•
•
•
•
•
•
LAGOS: 14.1 M
CALCUTA 13.2 M
LOS ANGELES: 13.2 M
SHANGHAI: 13.0 M
BUENOS AIRES: 12.7 M
SOURCE: THE
POPULATION
INSTITUTE 2/3/01

6. MEGACITIES IN 2020
WORLD POPULATION:
10 BILLION
•
•
•
•
•
BOMBAY: 28.5 M
TOKYO: 27.3 M
LAGOS: 26.5 M
DHAKA: 24.0 M
KARACHI: 21.7 M
•
•
•
•
•
•
SAO PAULO: 21.3 M
MEXICO CITY: 19.6 M
JAKARTA: 19.4
CALCUTA 18.8 M
NEW DEHLI: 18:R M
SOURCE: THE
POPULATION
INSTITUTE 2/3/01

7. WHAT HISTORY TEACHES
• CITIES AND
MEGACITIES EXIST
BY GEOLOGIC,
HYDROLOGIC, AND
ATMOSPHERIC
CONSENT, WHICH
CAN BE
WITHDRAWN
WITHOUT NOTICE.

8. MEGACITIES FACE DISASTERS
FROM …
• EARTHQUAKES
• FLOODS
• SEVERE
WINDSTORMS
• LANDSLIDES
• VOLCANIC
ERUPTIONS
• WILDFIRES
• TSUNAMIS
• DROUGHTS

9. INTERLOCKING CONCEPTS ON
MEGACITIES AND NATURAL HAZARDS
• NATURAL HAZARDS,
GENERATE POTENTIAL
DISASTER AGENTS
WHICH CREATE RISK
TO THE BUILT
ENVIRONMENT.
• THE CHOICE: LIVE
WITH UNACCEPTABLE
RISK OR ACCEPTABLE
LEVELS OF RISK.

10. INTERLOCKING CONCEPTS ON
MEGACITIES AND NATURAL HAZARDS
• UNACCEPTABLE
RISK CALLS FOR
PUBLIC POLICIES
TO REDUCE
VULNERABILITIES.

11. INTERLOCKING CONCEPTS ON
MEGACITIES AND NATURAL HAZARDS
• VULNERABILITIES
REFLECT POLICY
FLAWS WITH
RESPECT TO
PREPAREDNESS,
PROTECTION,
RESPONSE, AND
RECOVERY

12. INTERLOCKING CONCEPTS ON
MEGACITIES AND NATURAL HAZARDS
• PREPAREDNESS,
PROTECTION,
RESPONSE, AND
RECOVERY ARE THE
MOST EFFECTIVE
MEASURES.
• BUT, THEY ARE HARD
TO SELL TO THE
PUBLIC AND TAKE
TIME TO IMPLEMENT.

13. TOKYO: A MEGACITY AT RISK
FROM NATURAL HAZARDS

14. CAIRO: A MEGACITY AT RISK
FROM NATURAL HAZARDS

15. ISTHANBUL: A MEGACITY AT RISK
FROM NATURAL HAZARDS

16. ISTHANBUL: CAUSES OF
VULNERABILITIES
• SIZE
• FRAGILITY OF
EXISTING BUIDINGS/
INFRASTRUCTURE
• INADEQUATE
PROTECTION
MEASURES
• CONSTRUCTION
MATERIALS AND
PRACTICES

17. SAN FRANCISCO: DEPENDENT
ON TRANSPORTATION
• DAMAGE TO ONE
SPAN OF THE BAY
BRIDGE CHANGED
THE LIVES OF
MILLIONS AND
DISRUPTED MANY
BUSINESSES.
• NOONE KNOWS THE
TRUE COST.

18. LOS ANGELES: DEPENDENT ON
UTILITY SYSTEMS
• DAMAGE TO A
UTILIYY CORRIDOR
CAUSEED
WIDESPREAD
OUTAGES OF POWER,
GAS, WATER, AND
WASTE CENTERS.
• OUTAGES LED TO
LOSSES IN THE
MILLIONS.

19. SAN FRANCISCO: SUSCEPTIBLE
TO FIRE

20. QUESTION
• CAN WE MAKE
MEGACITIES
RESILIENT TO
NATURAL HAZARDS?

21. RISK ASSESSMENT
•NAT. HAZARDS
•INVENTORY
•VULNERABILITY
•LOCATION
ACCEPTABLE RISK
RISK
UNACCEPTABLE RISK
VULNERABILITY
REDUCTON
DATA BASES
AND INFORMATION
MEGACITY
DISASTER
RESILIENCE
HAZARDS:
GROUND SHAKING
GROUND FAILURE
SURFACE FAULTING
TECTONIC DEFORMATION
TSUNAMI RUN UP
AFTERSHOCKS
•PREPAREDNESS
•PRPTECTION
•EMERGENCY RESPONSE
•RECOVERY
•EDUCATIONAL SURGES