Societal response to Hurricane Mitch and intra- versus intergenerational equity issues

Whose norms should apply?

Michael Glantz, Dale Jamieson

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Late in the 1998 hurricane season, Central America was slammed by a devastating hurricane. Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Belize were greatly impacted by Hurricane Mitch, one of the deadliest storms to affect the region in the past 200 years. The economies of each of these countries were badly affected. In the case of Honduras - at the time the fourth-poorest country in Latin America - its president suggested that 50 years of progress had been wiped out by the floods and mudslides associated with this relatively short-lived storm system. Humanitarian assistance poured into the region in the first months following the disaster. As of mid-2000, various national, bilateral, international, and nongovernmental programs were in progress or on the drawing board for recovery, reconstruction, and renewed development of the worst affected countries. Using Honduras as a case study, some of the ethical issues that abound in the decisions of whom to help, when, and how to help them in the wake of such an extreme climate-related human tragedy are examined. Should development assistance be focused on those who have been directly and adversely affected by this storm, or should the emphasis be on reducing the risk of exposure by future generations to such disasters? Is there yet another approach that seeks to protect future generations from similar harm while at the same time assisting present-day victims to get through their hardships?

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)869-882
    Number of pages14
    JournalRisk Analysis
    Volume20
    Issue number6
    DOIs
    StatePublished - 2000

    Fingerprint

    Honduras
    Cyclonic Storms
    Hurricanes
    Social Responsibility
    Disasters
    Relief Work
    Landslides
    Belize
    El Salvador
    Nicaragua
    Guatemala
    Central America
    Latin America
    Climate
    Ethics
    Recovery

    Keywords

    • Disaster relief
    • Hurricane Mitch
    • Intergenerational equity
    • Precautionary principle
    • Sustainable development

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality
    • Physiology (medical)

    Cite this

    Societal response to Hurricane Mitch and intra- versus intergenerational equity issues : Whose norms should apply? / Glantz, Michael; Jamieson, Dale.

    In: Risk Analysis, Vol. 20, No. 6, 2000, p. 869-882.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{5f5e43bf8f1d431c9417bc43449e049a,
    title = "Societal response to Hurricane Mitch and intra- versus intergenerational equity issues: Whose norms should apply?",
    abstract = "Late in the 1998 hurricane season, Central America was slammed by a devastating hurricane. Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Belize were greatly impacted by Hurricane Mitch, one of the deadliest storms to affect the region in the past 200 years. The economies of each of these countries were badly affected. In the case of Honduras - at the time the fourth-poorest country in Latin America - its president suggested that 50 years of progress had been wiped out by the floods and mudslides associated with this relatively short-lived storm system. Humanitarian assistance poured into the region in the first months following the disaster. As of mid-2000, various national, bilateral, international, and nongovernmental programs were in progress or on the drawing board for recovery, reconstruction, and renewed development of the worst affected countries. Using Honduras as a case study, some of the ethical issues that abound in the decisions of whom to help, when, and how to help them in the wake of such an extreme climate-related human tragedy are examined. Should development assistance be focused on those who have been directly and adversely affected by this storm, or should the emphasis be on reducing the risk of exposure by future generations to such disasters? Is there yet another approach that seeks to protect future generations from similar harm while at the same time assisting present-day victims to get through their hardships?",
    keywords = "Disaster relief, Hurricane Mitch, Intergenerational equity, Precautionary principle, Sustainable development",
    author = "Michael Glantz and Dale Jamieson",
    year = "2000",
    doi = "10.1111/0272-4332.206080",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "20",
    pages = "869--882",
    journal = "Risk Analysis",
    issn = "0272-4332",
    publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
    number = "6",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Societal response to Hurricane Mitch and intra- versus intergenerational equity issues

    T2 - Whose norms should apply?

    AU - Glantz, Michael

    AU - Jamieson, Dale

    PY - 2000

    Y1 - 2000

    N2 - Late in the 1998 hurricane season, Central America was slammed by a devastating hurricane. Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Belize were greatly impacted by Hurricane Mitch, one of the deadliest storms to affect the region in the past 200 years. The economies of each of these countries were badly affected. In the case of Honduras - at the time the fourth-poorest country in Latin America - its president suggested that 50 years of progress had been wiped out by the floods and mudslides associated with this relatively short-lived storm system. Humanitarian assistance poured into the region in the first months following the disaster. As of mid-2000, various national, bilateral, international, and nongovernmental programs were in progress or on the drawing board for recovery, reconstruction, and renewed development of the worst affected countries. Using Honduras as a case study, some of the ethical issues that abound in the decisions of whom to help, when, and how to help them in the wake of such an extreme climate-related human tragedy are examined. Should development assistance be focused on those who have been directly and adversely affected by this storm, or should the emphasis be on reducing the risk of exposure by future generations to such disasters? Is there yet another approach that seeks to protect future generations from similar harm while at the same time assisting present-day victims to get through their hardships?

    AB - Late in the 1998 hurricane season, Central America was slammed by a devastating hurricane. Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Belize were greatly impacted by Hurricane Mitch, one of the deadliest storms to affect the region in the past 200 years. The economies of each of these countries were badly affected. In the case of Honduras - at the time the fourth-poorest country in Latin America - its president suggested that 50 years of progress had been wiped out by the floods and mudslides associated with this relatively short-lived storm system. Humanitarian assistance poured into the region in the first months following the disaster. As of mid-2000, various national, bilateral, international, and nongovernmental programs were in progress or on the drawing board for recovery, reconstruction, and renewed development of the worst affected countries. Using Honduras as a case study, some of the ethical issues that abound in the decisions of whom to help, when, and how to help them in the wake of such an extreme climate-related human tragedy are examined. Should development assistance be focused on those who have been directly and adversely affected by this storm, or should the emphasis be on reducing the risk of exposure by future generations to such disasters? Is there yet another approach that seeks to protect future generations from similar harm while at the same time assisting present-day victims to get through their hardships?

    KW - Disaster relief

    KW - Hurricane Mitch

    KW - Intergenerational equity

    KW - Precautionary principle

    KW - Sustainable development

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034581222&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034581222&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1111/0272-4332.206080

    DO - 10.1111/0272-4332.206080

    M3 - Article

    VL - 20

    SP - 869

    EP - 882

    JO - Risk Analysis

    JF - Risk Analysis

    SN - 0272-4332

    IS - 6

    ER -