I live in the UK. A natural disaster, here, usually involves flooding to the ground floor of your property. Occasionally, should you live close to a river or on a cliff top close to the edge, your house will be totally destroyed by extreme Rainstorms or coastal erosion.

Information about Flood risk areas is available from The Environment Agency website.(UKGOV) Flood is rated as Once in 3, 5, or fifty years. After several recent floods, Insurance companies now refuse to insure certain properties that THEY consider to be at risk.(Known, has no time limit, nor has frequency any bearing. Many homes simply cannot get insurance cover.)

We have no volcanoes now in the UK, though we do occasionally experience tremours as the 'plates' grind due to uplift or lateral shift of our bedrocks. I do, however appreciate that people like volcanic areas for their increased soil nutrients. As agricultural areas they offer a place of work and abundance of crops.

Two areas of the US intrigue me - Why would you live in a known tornado area. Why would you live in a known Hurricane area. Neither bring any benefit to where you live. In fact, the increase in both of these 'natural disasters' within a 'lifetime' would be a major factor to decide not to.

In a country that is quite sparcely populated, there are many areas that 'as an alternative' would be a safer option for those able to move. Yet people persist in rebuilding in the same place. What am I not understanding. What is so important that you put your lives at risk.

In a modern world, many people 'work from home' with no necessary connection to their environment. We have less connection to our birthplace and are much more 'mobile by choice' than our forefathers.

As there seems to be another storm about to hit an area that has not recovered from a previous disaster. I am curious as to how people (or a government) can rationalise non - permanent evacuation. At what point do you think ' you would call it a day' and allow nature to reclaim those parts of the country that it seems intent upon attacking.

I am not being 'defeatist' but as an Environmental Science graduate 'I do not understand'.
We quote King Cannute who showed that 'God Given Royalty' could not command the tide to turn back.

For those affected my hopes are that you keep safe.

after living many years in the New Orleans area, we decided to move to New Hampshire. Moving from the deep South to New England is definitely a culture shock. First off, we scouted the area for several years prior to the move, for habitability, and cost. Weather conditions in New England was our first concern. Now we are both retired, we found the heat and humidity in New Orleans to be very repressive. Summer in New Orleans heat ranges from 80s to high 90s, and humidity will run from 85% to 95% or higher. Rain can come down in torrents, with road flooding common. It's common during the Summer to get 2-3 inches within 30 minutes. The actual cost of living in the New Orleans area is beyond reasonable. We owned a very nice ranch style home, about 3000 sq feet. The real estate taxes, with a $75,000 homestead exemption was about $3000, but the flood insurance was $3200/yr, and home owners was $2950, with a no claim discount. Of course the Parish sales tax rate was 11%, and income tax rate at 7%. So, moving to New Hampshire made monetary sense, no sales tax, no income tax, and very low flood and home owner insurance. I do pay a small tax on dividends. In our area in NH, it would be impossible to flood since we're on a mountain. The topography here mountain and valley, not like the flat South. Plus, there are plenty of good roads and interstates running North to South, for our Winter escape to the Gulf Coast. This "snow bird" will be in the South between December, to April. Weather events in New Orleans were actual Hurricanes. As far as damage, hurricanes cause extreme home damage, and monetary damage, both for physical structures, and cost to evacuate, since gouging evacuees is very prevalent. So, now you know why I made the move to New England.

A couple of thoughts... Katrina was under the Bush administration (4 election cycles ago) and if one actually looks, there was as much state and local government ineptitude as there was federal. As for Puerto Rico, while my heart bleeds for the people affected there, to be fair, there was an almost non-existant power grid, corrupt local officials, archaic and convoluted communication system, and an infrastructure that was crumbling long before the hurricane hit. Most of the U.S. has infrastructure that ONLY needs to be repaired after disaster, not replace completely. While the human toll in Puerto Rico was/is horrible, as for disaster relief in recent times, I would consider it an outlier.

Often people who are not of the states do not understand the vastness of our land mass. A tornado (even an F5) might only be a mile wide at most and will stay on the ground for seldom more than a couple of miles. SO a big tornado will affect 8-10 square miles. Do you know how many square miles are in Oklahoma alone? You have a better chance of winning the lotto here than getting struck by a tornado in your lifetime.

As for hurricanes. I can speak for Florida, but I imagine that it is the same with building codes all along hurricane areas. New construction is designed to withstand the onslaught of a major hurricane. I saw it first hand in the Florida keys last year. Major hurricane, direct hit, and while there was damage, most buildings of newer construction withstood the onslaught and the area was up and running within the week. The old buildings/infrasturcture was demolished and has now been replaced with new. This is ongoing and will happen again.

People make all kinds of choices for all kinds of reasons. But I am sure from a distance some of this makes no sense, but here in the states, scale is way different than it is in Europe or GB. The 24 hour news cycle will show damage way beyond scale for long periods of time simply to fill the cycle......Just my opinion