chapter 4 - DRK

Strictly under embargo until Wednesday 22 September at 00:01 GMT (02:01 Geneva time)know the phone number) and the fire enginescould not access some areas because therewere no roads or because people had put theirpossessions in the road.The settlement has had other serious fires– for instance, before the February 2004 fires,there had been fires which destroyed between40 and 90 buildings in 1995, 1997, 2001and 2003. In 2008, about 23 houses wereburnt down in February, 60 in August, 200 inlate November and 200 in early December.The initial causes of these fires are oftennot clear but the widespread use of candles forlighting and open fires or dangerous paraffinstoves for cooking and heating is clearly partof the reason. The close physical proximity ofbuildings and the many that are made of flammablematerials help explain why fires spreadfrom house to house – although many of themore severe fires here and in other informalsettlements in Cape Town are also associatedwith high winds. The vulnerability gap: How trends in disasters fitwithin a broader picture of risk and vulnerabilityOne thing these different visions of urban risk have in common is that risk we areexperiencing in cities both today and in the future are produced over time, throughthe economic processes of urban development and various decisions taken at differenttimes by the authorities and the citizens. What we see as risk in cities, such as growth ininformal or illegal settlements, inadequate infrastructure or services, building on sitesat risk from high winds, floods or landslides, or building with flammable materials, isactually caused by a ‘vulnerability gap’. On one side of the gap is the lack of knowledgeor financial capacity and sometimes willingness of urban authorities to reduce vulnerabilities.Priorities in cities for economic growth, urban expansion and the fact that thewell-off in cities may not be overly vulnerable to disasters thwart efforts to reduce risk.On the other side of the vulnerability gap are the poor urban communities, who dowhat they can to reduce their vulnerability, but ultimately are limited in their financialand political capability to reduce the risk they face.Box 2.3 shows how in Istanbul, Turkey this vulnerability gap has emerged over time toproduce a city highly vulnerable to earthquakes and flood hazards. As in Istanbul, thisvulnerability gap in cities can eventually be narrowed as governments understand betterthe risks and develop the capability to take actions to reduce vulnerability in waysthat are accountable to everyone in the city.Box 2.3 The vulnerability gap in Istanbul, TurkeyIstanbul, the largest city and centre of productionin Turkey, is highly vulnerable to earthquakes,landslides and flood hazards. Thisvulnerability is partly a factor of Istanbul’slocation, lying just north of the seismically activeAnatolian fault line, but it is the precarious andWorld Disasters Report 2010 – Focus on urban risk45