| Popis: |
This chapter deals with some of the issues behind the vulnerability of that part of the Mexican population who are most exposed to natural hazards due to the site and conditions of their dwellings. In the case of Mexico, as is the case in many other countries, the people most vulnerable to natural hazards, in general, are the ones with the lowest income. This fact, in turn, translates in countries such as Mexico, in a large percentage also being indigenous. The issue of ethnicity plays various roles dealing with ethics when facing measures to issue warnings or carry out contingency procedures. Although it would be intuitive to assume that low-income people are most vulnerable to natural hazards, it is necessary to quantify the degree of vulnerability compared to the rest of the population, so measures can be taken to reduce the unfair difference. In this chapter, we want to draw attention to the different causes for the vulnerability of this segment of the population in Mexico, and some of the reasons why the ways to help them improve their living conditions continue to be neglected. We also address the question of whether there is a difference in vulnerability, which corresponds directly to the ethnicity status. We estimate the degree of vulnerability by means of an index derived from figures on demography (Social Vulnerability Index). Overall, we can see a clear coincidence between the level of social marginalization in the indigenous regions with vulnerability, as expected. Our results also show that the vulnerability of the central and coastal regions is lower than that of the Montana (mountain) region and the recovery time is an important factor to be considered as a source of the difference between the three areas due to the isolation and difficulty of access to the mountain region. We estimate that the fatality rate in the rural population would be 20% larger than in the urban population in case of a hypothetical earthquake with magnitude M8.6 off the coast of Guerrero. We discuss some of the repercussions of a lack of planning strategies to mitigate damage and/or lack of enforcement of planning and regulations in cases where they exist. The recent catastrophic results of the “Manuel” storm of September 2013 are examples of poor preventing strategies and lack of enforcement of hazard mitigation practice. |
