Homework in the book

Page 34/12.3

In terms of the number of lives lost, most people who die as a result of natural disasters are in LEDCS.
It has been reported that between 1991 and 2005 630000 people were killed by natural disasters in
LEDCS compared with 72000 in MEDCS.

In addition, people may have to risk in disaster-prone areas, where land Is cheap, in order to make a
living. It has been found that most of the farming population of Bangladesh live in low-laying parts of
the country where severe floods occur regularly.

As far as economic impact is concerned, infrastructure In LEDCS is often of poorer quality and can be
easily damaged or destroyed.

In particular, tourism, which is an important factor in LEDCS can be badly hit by damage to
infrastructure.

With respect to social impact, disasters affect poor people more, than well-offs. It has been assumed
that although a household on a lower income may spend less in total terms than a wealthier
household, they are likely to spend a higher proportion of their income on recovery.

It is also the case that fewer people In LEDCS have insurance against property

From the point of view of health In some LEDCS there are only basic water and sewage facilities, that
can be easily damaged.

This can be made worse by the fact that healthcare facilities in LEDCS are less able to cope with the
demand after a natural disaster. It was observed in Haiti that after the 2010 earthquake, the medical
services were clearly unable to deal with the huge number of injured.

However, in some respects natural disasters may have a greater impact on MEDCS.

For example, MEDCS have more developed infrastructure, which is very expensive to replace or
repair if it’s damaged. Research has shown that the USA and Japan has suffered the most economic
damage from natural disasters between 1991-2005.

It may also be that factors other than the level of national development influence how severe the
impact of a natural disaster is.

Finally, also MEDCS may be badly placed for natural disasters.