chapter 4 - DRK

Strictly under embargo until Wednesday 22 September at 00:01 GMT (02:01 Geneva time)The United Nations (UN) Population Division’s projections suggest that almost allthe world’s population growth in the next few decades will be in urban areas in lowandmiddle-income nations (see Table 1.1). Much of this population growth is currentlyin informal settlements where housing conditions are generally very poor andeven the most rudimentary protective infrastructure is often lacking. A high proportionof this urban growth is in cities at risk from the increased frequency and intensityof extreme weather events and storm surges that climate change is bringing or is likelyto bring.Table 1.1 Growth in the world’s urban and rural population(millions of inhabitants)1950 1970 1990 Projected for 2010* Projected for 2030*World’s urban population 737 1,332 2,275 3,495 4,965High-income nations 427 652 818 925 1,016Low- and middle-income nations 310 680 1,456 2,570 3,949Africa 33 86 204 412 759Asia 237 485 1,015 1,770 2,669Europe 281 412 509 530 550Latin America and the Caribbean 69 164 314 471 603Northern America 110 171 214 286 351Oceania 8 14 19 25 31World’s rural population 1,798 2,367 3,020 3,412 3,426Source: United Nations (2008)* The figures for 2010 are projected because no data are available yet from the new round of censuses held in 2009and 2010 or planned for 2011. The projections for 2030 may overstate urban population growth in Africa; poor economicperformance and / or conflict have slowed urbanization there and this will have to change if the region is to urbanize rapidly.But a city can be among the safest places when a storm, flood or earthquake hits.This can be seen in the many extreme weather events or earthquakes in high-incomenations (all of which are highly urbanized) that have no, or very few, fatalities. Mostextreme weather events in high-income nations cause no fatalities. For those that do,high-quality buildings and infrastructure usually keep down deaths and injuries, andrapid, good-quality emergency responses limit the impact of injuries. Of course, wecannot measure what has been avoided – the floods that did not happen as the drainagesystem coped; the fire disasters and building collapses prevented by good-qualitybuildings and emergency response; the industrial, mining and transport disastersavoided by the application of sensible standards and safety measures. But without theinvestment in physical capital and institutions, the situation would have been muchworse (although many of the measures that avoid disasters were taken in response toprevious disasters).Part of what can be avoided can be seen in the distribution of fatalities from disasters.Figure 1.1 shows the extent to which deaths from cyclones are concentrated12