Last Social Studies class we talked about why people would live in places where they could be affected by a Natural Disaster. It didn't seem like a very smart idea the first time I heard of people who lived in places like the slopes of Mt. Merapi. Now, it makes more sense to mean because some people have to and they don't really have a choice.
We learned about three different approaches that people take when living in areas affected by disasters. These approaches describe why people live where they live.
The first approach is the
Fatalistic Approach. This means, the homeowners know of the dangers, but if the natural disaster happens, then it happens. They're kind of just saying, " If the disaster occurs, then we can't really stop it. We know what will happen, but let's just try living here." That's just a little bit of what I think they would say.
The next approach is the
Acceptance Approach. This is when the advantages of living in that area, outweigh any disasters that may occur. For example, the villagers living on the slopes of Mt. Merapi have better soil to farm with than other farmers who may live in the countryside. Or people who work in San Fransisco can't work elsewhere because they have jobs in that city, even if earthquakes can affect the city regularly.
The last approach is the
Adaption Approach. With the adaption approach, this is where the three 'P's can be used. These three mean that the disasters can be
predicted,
prevented, and
protected. When I say prevented, I don't actually mean that you can prevent the disaster from occurring. What I mean by that is, you can stop more destruction by occurring.
Natural disasters cause all kinds of destruction, but if more cities could prepare themselves, we'd be ready.