Colombia can learn to anticipate disasters

Colombia faces a critical challenge in its ability to anticipate and mitigate disasters, according to recent analyses highlighting gaps between knowledge and action. The country has demonstrated resilience during recent crises, with communities organizing, citizens mobilizing resources, and public officials working tirelessly to support those affected. However, these efforts have raised difficult questions about how much damage could be prevented through proactive measures rather than reactive responses. A detailed analysis published by La Silla Vacía titled “Los 5 datos que revelan qué tan preparada está Colombia para un terremoto” offers valuable insights into this issue. By cross-referencing data from the Global Earthquake Model (GEM), the National Unit for Risk Management (UNGRD), the Department of Statistics (DANE), and international seismic records, the piece reveals that Colombia’s preparedness extends beyond simple categorizations of “prepared” or “unprepared.” While the country has long been aware of many of its risks, the key challenge lies in translating that awareness into tangible reductions in vulnerability. This gap between understanding and action is a central focus of behavioral sciences and risk psychology, which aim to explain why knowing a danger does not always lead to effective prevention. The analysis distinguishes three crucial concepts often conflated: threat, exposure, and vulnerability. Colombia ranks 37th out of 145 countries in terms of ground movement threat, high, though not the highest. Exposure is another factor, with Bogotá alone accounting for 21% of the nation's built value, and combined with nearby regions, representing over half the total. Threats are natural phenomena, but disasters are social ones. The same earthquake can cause vastly different outcomes depending on where and how buildings are constructed, the institutions present, who has access to safe housing, trust in early warnings, and the capacity of communities to respond and recover. The department of Chocó exemplifies this dynamic. Already identified in the UNGRD Risk Atlas as having the highest projected loss per unit of built property due to earthquakes, the region faced a situation where known vulnerabilities were compounded by existing conditions. The question arises: If we knew the risk, why did we continue building in such a manner? This highlights a broader pattern of behavior that challenges assumptions about how information and regulation translate into safer practices. Another striking finding from the analysis is the low percentage of buildings in Colombia designed to withstand earthquakes. According to the GEM model used, 36.5% of structures lack seismic-resistant design, and when including those with minimal compliance, the figure rises to 71.4%. In comparison, Chile, Costa Rica, and Japan show significantly better performance, with less than 5%, 3%, and 3% respectively lacking proper seismic resistance. Despite having national seismic regulations since 1984, updated over time, the analysis estimates that 74.9% of buildings were constructed without adhering to current standards. Having a code does not guarantee compliance, revealing a complex issue involving enforcement, education, and cultural attitudes toward safety. These findings underscore a fundamental disconnect between policy and practice. For years, there was an assumption that providing information, establishing norms, or increasing risk awareness would automatically result in preventive actions. Scientific evidence, however, shows a more nuanced reality. A systematic review on household preparation for earthquakes indicates that simply knowing about risks is insufficient. Effective mitigation requires more than awareness, it demands structural changes, institutional support, and shifts in societal behavior. Colombia’s experience with recent disasters serves as both a warning and an opportunity to rethink how best to build resilience against future threats.