Author’s Accepted Manuscript Describing Storm Xaver in disaster terms Dorota Rucińska www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdr PII: S2212-4209(18)30572-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.11.012 Reference: IJDRR1023 To appear in: International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction Received date: 4 May 2018 Revised date: 6 November 2018 Accepted date: 12 November 2018 Cite this article as: Dorota Rucińska, Describing Storm Xaver in disaster terms, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.11.012 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Describing Storm Xaver in disaster terms Dorota Rucińska* University of Warsaw, Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies, ul. Krakowskie Przedmieście 30, 00-927 Warszawa *Corresponding author: Dorota Rucińska, [email protected] Abstract The aim of this paper is to understand the relationship between the types of losses incurred in the context of Storm Xaver, and the use of the term ‘disaster’ for a winter storm that occurred in 2013. This understanding is important as regards disaster risk reduction policy. This case study of the social-economic impact of Storm Xaver and the criteria that defined the 'disaster' in Poland, Germany, the UK and the Netherlands allows us the opportunity to understand and assess whether such a term is justified. This investigation reveals that affected populations are key when it comes to justifying the ‘disaster’ term. This study looks into those hidden meanings within the description for those affected by such a disaster, with quoted figures provided for the numbers of individuals affected subject to correction. However, it soon became clear the importance of separating the impact of such an event over the short and long-term as regards the study of disaster risk reduction on these groups. On the one hand, this case study reveals an imprecise use of the term ‘disaster’, and on the other misinformation in the numbers of those affected, which in turn leads to a misinterpretation in data and misleading optimism. If the approach is focused on "affected people" and the consequential effects of living in the area, then this can be used as a tool to put together more responsible activities for 1 action towards Disaster Risk Reduction, e.g. an allocation of budget funds in the regions and locally. Keywords: Disaster, term, criteria, affected, winter storm, Europe 1. Introduction Natural disasters may include such natural event as floods, hurricanes, winter storms, and earthquakes where a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society. The term ‘disaster’ has been given as a definition by international organisations such as the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) [1] and the World Bank [2], although there is no regular criteria that allows detailed analysis of the term that would prove useful long-term. In fact, the lack of criteria is often the reason for the complications that occur when analysing differences as regards the impact upon various nation states. These complications can amount to the effect of misunderstanding a disaster, the limited available data to the public, or even being random or selected. Generally there are differences when it comes to describing losses, and in turn, what can be defined as a disaster. Most of the previously mentioned criteria for disaster is used by the EM-DAT [1]. Other criteria is used for assessing the size and impact of disasters in countries by other institutions such as the World Bank [2], and the Munich Re [3]. Considerations are continued in many contexts [4,5,6,7]. In general, damage from natural disasters in Europe in 2013 (16.9 billion EUR) was the fourth highest of the decade. The damage caused by the 2013 storm was also the fourth worst of the same period [8], with insured losses of €763 million and €1 billion in total damage [9]. Storm Xaver itself brought a significant storm surge to northern Europe, leaving at least 15 people dead and dozens of others injured. Damage was heaviest in Scotland, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavia, and Poland, with more than 650,000 power outages occurring which also led to the suspensions of flight and rail services. Although insured losses were estimated at roughly €800 million, total economic losses were even higher [10]. Predictions show that in the next few decades the amount of strong winds in Central Europe will increase by about 20%, and that the wind speed could be 7-10% higher [11]. Confidence in any future changes as regards wind speeds is 2 relatively low, but it seems increasingly likely that there will be an increase in average and extreme wind speeds in northern Europe [12]. There is widespread acceptance that a wind speed of 17 metres a second (m/s) is considered strong (World Meteorological Organization, WMO) [13] and can cause damage. The winds are the reasons why we need to be able to understand the impact of winter storms better and use this understanding for DRR adaptation policies. In more extreme examples, Cyclone Quimburga in 1972, Storm Vivian in 1990, Cyclone Oratia in 2000 and Cyclone Kyrill in 2007 each caused significant losses in Europe. The research problem is the use of (or not) criteria for defining what is or what is not a "natural disaster"; that is, the description of a natural event based on wind speed, or tidal wave, and the height of the water level treated as an extreme event; but more often or not it is not on criteria based on the number of fatalities or affected people. Furthermore, any descriptions of losses as results are presented as accidents and not on the impact on relationships. Losses can be hidden in kinds of data; it is reason to identify gaps. The term ‘disaster’ is a very real subject because the safety of the population has to be taken into consideration, according to the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) (2015-2030) [14], along with risk management and the implementing of DRR in those affected nation states. The SFDRR aims are placed in the centre of interests and discussions [15, 16, 17, 18] which are a continuation of 'disaster' studies that are talked up as social topics [19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24]. These authors emphasize the quality of data about natural disasters according to the SFDRR [25], for example: “Data and statistics are important in understanding the impacts and costs of disasters. Systematic disaster data collection and analysis can be used to inform policy decisions to help reduce disaster risks and build resilience.” "Access to information is critical to successful disaster risk management. You cannot manage what you cannot measure." - Margareta Wahlström, United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Disaster Risk Reduction [26]. “Global and national databases for monitoring losses from national hazards suffer from a number of limitations, which in turn lead to a misinterpretation in hazard loss data” [27]. Before the creation of the SFDRR there were comments as regards the differences and the lack of standardization as regards the term "disaster", as well as disaster 3 typology/classification and their primary and secondary effects which complicate any comparisons of data and decreased accuracy in reporting disaster related impact [28]. These sentences and citations show the direction for the article and focus on the data and the term ‘disaster’. The paper addresses the term “disaster” within the context of the European winter storm Xaver in 2013. The aim of the study is to know whether the use of the term "disaster" is justified, in the case of Storm Xaver in those selected countries. What criteria determines that Xaver is a disaster? This question is important because such criteria indicates those serious effects that should be used in social education to reduce the risk of any losses. Therefore, studies were conducted in Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Poland; those countries where Storm Xaver was an extreme event. This storm was considered a meteorological disaster because the highest ever ocean levels were recorded, along with very high wind speeds. Those highest wind speeds were restricted to the islands and coastline in the north of Germany, and Storm Xaver was deemed as a meteorological disaster. Although the resulting storm surge reached six metres above mean sea level, fortunately for the area, it was protected by an eight-metre high dyke. The water in the River Elbe in Hamburg was at its second highest level since measurements were first recorded. The storm produced a storm surge over the North Sea that was 3.5 metres above mean high water. As a result of Storm Xaver, people in the north of the country were without power; public schools were closed, along with Christmas markets and many roads; several flights out of Hamburg were cancelled, and the high-speed rail line between Hamburg and Berlin was closed because of fallen debris on the tracks. There were significant costs to the public, private and economic sectors, with floods and hailstorms accounting for 77% of all disaster damage in 2013 [8]. Also in the Netherlands, Storm Xaver was considered a meteorological disaster, along with the UK. The Netherlands had never recorded winds of such intensity since 1910, with speeds of 38 m/s recorded in Stavoren on the coast.