Page - 198 - in The Power of Urban Water - Studies in premodern urbanism

198 ChristianRohr Fromnatural hazards to (natural) disasters The study of natural hazards from a cultural history perspective has become very popular in the last twodecades.1 Such studies tend to focus on theperception, interpretation, (risk)man- agementandcommemorationof eventsby thoseaffectedandbyhumansocieties ingeneral. In this context, the term ‘naturalhazard’ is taken tomean thephysical event itself,which in some instanceshasanimpactonthehumanenvironment,whereas ‘naturaldisaster’ isusedtodenote the perception of such an event by those involved.2 Several factors are necessary for a natural hazard to be considered a natural disaster. Not all are necessarily relevant at the same time, but at least three or four shouldbeapplicable:3 a) thehelplessness of humanswhenattempting to copewithdamagebyavailablemeans; b) an inability to explain andunderstand the event; c) material andpersonal suffering; d) theunexpectednessof the event,whichdependsonhowpreparedan (urban) society is for single or recurrent threats; e) whetheraseriesofnaturalhazardsoccurswithinashortperiodof time, thereby raising the vulnerability of those afflicted; f) symbolic connotationsandpatternsof interpretation, suchas connections tonaturaldisas- ters described in theBible; g) thewider historical context in the formof the economic, religious and climatic crises (e.g. in the 16th and in the early 19th century). Unexpected and sudden natural hazards, such as earthquakes, storm surges, severe thunder- storms with hail or floods caused by ice jams, are typically perceived as disasters, because peopledonothave time to install aneffective systemofprevention,which, in turn,means that the number of victims is higher. In some cases, vulnerability also plays a role, as when, for example, urban settlements are erected carelessly in dangerous places or unsuitable building materials areused. Ifasociety ispreparedtocopewithanenvironmentalhazard,peopleaccount for it through- out their daily lives andwithin their socio-economic system.Based on their communal experi- ence, they adapt the design and layout of settlement and their behaviour to minimise risks. Where the level of resilience in such a society is sufficiently heightened, the result may be a ‘cultureofdisaster’4 or,more correctly, a ‘cultureof riskmanagement’.5 For suchcommunities, most natural hazards cease to be disasters, and their inhabitants understand the reasons for and indications of these extreme events. The inhabitants undertake strategies of prevention, whichcan includebuildingand regularlymaintainingdykes, locating settlementson relatively securegroundandadaptingbuilding techniques to the risk inquestion.For example,windows are placed above ground floor level to prevent the ingress of floodwater, or roof constructions aredesignedtowithstandheavystorms.As faras ispossible, regionalandsupra-regionalwarn- ingsystemsmaybe installedasa furtherpreventativemeasure.Aswill bedemonstrated in this study, precisely this kindof ‘cultureof riskmanagement’ existedamongurbancommunities in pre-modernCentral Europe. 1 See, for instance,Rohr 2007;Gerrard–Petley 2013; Labbé 2017; Schenk 2017. 2 Cf.Quarantelli 1998;Oliver-Smith 2002;Grohet al. 2003; Smith–Petley 2009. 3 Rohr 2007, 55–62;Rohr 2013, 135. 4 Bankoff 2003. 5 Rohr 2007; Schenk2010 for riverine cultures; seealso Jakubowski-Tiessen 1992;Allemeyer 2006;deKraker 2005 formaritime coasts.