DM 101

Unit 01: Understanding Disaster Phenomena

Contents

 Concept and definitions of different terms of disaster.

 Approaches to understand disaster phenomena (natural science, applied science,
progressive and holistic approaches).
 Parameters of Disaster Risk.
 Levels of disaster as per national guideline.

Definition of Disaster
People from different disciplines have been trying to define Disaster in different
ways. Most of the definitions of Disaster addressed the issues related to
damaging events, loss and damage to life and property, affects on social system,
and community needs.

Flood hazard of Assam

Photo: Centre for disaster Management, Tezpur University

Few common definitions of disaster are presented below

 The Oxford Dictionary defined disaster as “Sudden or great misfortune,

calamity”

 The Webster’s Dictionary defined disaster as “A sudden calamitous event

producing great material damage, loss and distress”

1
  ADB handbook on disaster management defined disaster as “An event,
natural or man-made, sudden or progressive, which impacts with such severity
that the affected community has to respond by taking exceptional measures”

[Source: Handbook on Disaster Management, ADB Publication]

Different approaches to understand Disaster Phenomena

Conventional and dominant approaches

 Natural Science Approach
 Applied Science Approach

The Natural Science Approach equates disasters with devastating natural

phenomena and describes disaster as a misfortune or Act of God. According to
this approach, disaster is an accident, unforeseen consequence of unpredictable
and uncertain natural force, inevitable occurrence – on which we have no control.

In this approach, there is no scope for damage mitigation planning.

On the other hand, the Applied Science Approach focuses on determination of

magnitude of disaster based on magnitude of loss and damage, associated with
devastating phenomena.

While the first approach considers the triggering forces i.e., natural phenomena
like earthquake, cyclone etc. as disasters; the second approach deals with outcome
of the disaster phenomena. Both the approaches have certain limitations in
describing the complete process of disaster and its management.

The applied science approach recommends short time emergency actions like,
response and recovery to deal with crisis situations and has very little scope for
risk management based on rectification of the causes of disasters. This approach
gives stress on enhancing resistance of the exposures and physical structures for
minimizing loss and damage.

Alternative / Progressive Approaches

 Social Science Approach

 Holistic Approach

Since 1960’s, social scientists, anthropologists and development workers started thinking
for an alternative Approach known as Social Science Approach to describe disaster
phenomena more precisely, considering the reasons behind damage and disruptions under
the influence of natural forces. Going one-step ahead of dominant approaches, this
approach tried to correlate the occurrence of disaster with some unresolved problems of
development in our systems, which are mostly linked to social weaknesses of the
community. The outcome of research works carried out by different groups since 1970’s

2
depicts a strong correlation between unsustainable development and occurrence of
disasters.

The Holistic Approach considers both the external triggering force (natural or
man-made) and internal negative factors of our systems responsible for
occurrence of disasters.

Let us see some practical examples to understand the concept of holistic

approach.

Any natural phenomenon can lead a good, bad or worst situation. Natural
phenomena are not always responsible for occurrence of disasters.

A Natural Phenomenon A Situation

Good Bad Worst

Rain is a natural phenomenon. Rain can lead to flood damage or good harvest
depending on some prevailing conditions/factors of our system.

Case 1

Rain + Fertile Land + Skilled Manpower Good Yield

Case 2

Rain + Some Internal Negative Factors Flood

Similarly, a moderate earthquake may or may not cause structural damage to a

building. It depends on, how this building is constructed. A building may
collapse under the impact of an earthquake on two conditions

 The magnitude of earthquake is extremely high or

 The building is constructed violating the IS codes for Earthquake Resistant
Building.

3
Here, the second condition plays vital role in damage mitigation planning as the
first one is beyond our control.

From the above examples, it is now clear that a natural phenomenon combined
with some internal negative factors of a system cause damage and disruption to
the system. The prevailing negative factors within our system play the role of
catalyst between external triggering force and disaster.

Hazard, Vulnerability and Capacity

Hazard

Hazard can be defined as “A phenomenon or an event or an object, which has potential

to cause damage and disruption to our life, property and environment”.
Or
“Anything which is harmful for our system or has the potential to cause damage and
disruption to our normal pattern of life”.

For example,

Excess rainfall may lead to flood hazard. Here rain is the main force of flood
hazard. In absence of rain, there is no possibility of flood. Rainfall is a natural
phenomenon.

Release of energy due to rupture in earth’s crust may cause earthquake and
subsequently damage to our structure. Here, released energy is the force of
Earthquake Hazard. Earthquake is a natural phenomenon.

A bomb blast may cause severe damage to life and property depending on other
local factors.
Here, bomb is an object and its blast is an event.

Leakage of poisonous gas can cause damage to our life. Poisonous gas is harmful
object and its leakage is harmful event.

Therefore, the primary component of disaster is the hazard, which may be a

devastating natural phenomenon or harmful event or harmful object.

Sometime harmful exposures may play the role of hazards. For example, a weak
and old building may collapse even in absence of any external triggering force
like earthquake, resulting loss and damage to life and property. In this case, the
building itself is a hazard.

Many people defined natural hazards in different ways. Few common definitions
of natural hazards are [Source: Natural Disasters by David Alexander]

4
  “A naturally occurring or man-made geologic condition or phenomenon
that presents a rise or is a potential danger to life or property” (American
Geological Institute 1984).

 “An interaction of people and nature governed by the co-existent state of

adjustment of the human use system and the state of nature in the natural
events system” (White 1973).

 “Those elements in the physical environment [which are] harmful to man

and caused by forces extraneous to him” (Burton and Kates 1964).

 “The probability of occurrence within a specified period of time and within

a given area of a potentially damaging phenomenon” (UNDRO 1982).

Detail about assessment of natural hazards will be discussed in the subsequent

chapters.

Vulnerability

If we repeat the examples of hazards, we shall able to understand that, only

hazards are not responsible for damage and disruption. Other factors are also
involved in this process.

In absence of rain, there is no possibility of flood. There may not be heavy flood or
flood damage in the event of heavy rain. For heavy flood or flood damage, there
should be some unsafe conditions within our system, like poor carrying capacity
of river, weak embankment, settlement in low-lying areas etc.

Similarly, an earthquake may not be the sole reason for damage of buildings and
engineering structures. There should be some other reasons, which make the
structures susceptible to earthquake hazard. The reasons may be related to
violation of Indian Standard Codes for earthquake resistant structures like, testing
of soil quality, proper earthquake resistant design, quality construction material,
proper safety norms etc.

A bomb blast in open space without any exposures may not cause damage to life
and property. There may be significant damage; if it is a crowded place, there is
no monitoring system in place; people are not alert etc.

The reasons behind possible disaster due to leakage of poisonous gas may be;
violation of safety norms by the plant, plant is located in thickly populated area,
people are not aware about safety norms, lack of awareness about precautionary
measures etc.

Such unsafe conditions of our systems, which enhance the probability of loss and
damage, are called Vulnerability.

5
Vulnerability may be defined as a set of prevailing or consequential unsafe
conditions or negative factors, which reduces our ability to resist external
hazards to minimize damage and disruption of the system or to cope with
disaster situation.

Vulnerability has many dimensions

Physical vulnerability: Physical vulnerability of a system determines the physical
elements that are at risk and exposed to different hazards. Physical elements of a
system may be buildings, infrastructures, facilities, agriculture based industries,
forest, river network, hazard protection mechanism etc. Weak physical elements
are responsible for creating unsafe conditions and enhance the disaster risk in a
system. This also increases the probability of damage and disruption in the
system.

Social vulnerability: It indicates the weak social conditions of the community,

which gives extra pressures to a system and enhance its disaster risk. The social
vulnerability may be week community, poverty, weak leadership etc.

Economic vulnerability: Poor economic conditions of the people, community or

organizations, which play negative role in the capacity building process of a
community. Otherwise, severe loss and damage of physical components under
the impact of natural and man-made hazards may enhance economic burden of a
nation. In any case, economic vulnerability of a nation creates hindrance in
effective management of disaster. Therefore, the physical vulnerability factors
have significant role on enhancing economic vulnerability of a system.

Motivational vulnerability: It indicates lack of motivation of the people or

community to do good work. Motivational vulnerability is mainly responsible for
unsustainable development.

Similarly, there may be Technical, Environmental, Political, Cultural,

Educational, and Institutional vulnerability factors in a system, which have the
potential to enhance disaster risk of the system.

All these vulnerability factors or unsafe conditions arise in our system due to
some hidden dynamic pressures. The dynamic pressures have some root causes
and we cannot simply remove these pressures without addressing their root
causes. The dynamic pressures of a community or system are variable with root
causes.

Another feature of vulnerability factors is that, they respond differently with

different hazards. The disaster risk of a system for same set of vulnerable
conditions may be different for different hazards.

Therefore, study on progression of vulnerability factors and impact of probable

hazards on unsafe conditions of a system is mandatory for proper risk
assessment.

6
Capacity

Capacity means resources, means and strength required to improve our capability
to reduce the risk of our system or cope with disaster situation.

Capacity building mechanism primarily involves reduction of vulnerability

factors by developing adequate resources in terms of physical, material and living
resources; inventing suitable technology and methodology to deal with the
problem areas; and enhancing the strength in terms of financial and other matters.

Concept of risk

The word RISK implies the probability of damage, loss and other negative
consequences in a system under the influence of a triggering force.

When a system is at high risk, we can expect maximum damage and disruption in
the system, if a hazard strikes the system.

Parameters of disaster risk

The first parameter is hazard

When a system is exposed to a specific hazard like flood or earthquake, it induces

some sort of risk. If the system is prone to more hazards and magnitudes of
hazards are high, the risk of the system goes further in higher side.

Therefore, the Risk of a system is directly proportional to frequency and

magnitude and other characteristics of the hazards, to which the system is
exposed.

If there is no possible hazard or threat to a system, the risk of the system will
certainly be zero. In practice, it is not possible make the risk of a system zero by
eliminating its threats or hazards completely.

The second parameter is vulnerability of the system

More unsafe conditions of a system result more damage and disruption to the
system under the influence of hazards. So, the risk of a system is also directly

7
proportional to numbers of unsafe conditions or vulnerability factors of the
system.

The combined impact of Hazard and Vulnerability to a system is called Specific

Risk. Both the parameters are primarily responsible for enhancing the disaster
risk of our systems. In absence of one parameter i.e., “Hazard or Vulnerability”,
the Disaster Risk of a system becomes zero. In reality, it is not possible.

Third parameter

Third parameter of the Risk is the elements at risk.

If there is no resource or element in a system, there is no possibility of loss and

damage, even in presence of external hazards.

If a system has valuable physical and living elements but these are less susceptible
to hazards; then also the risk of the system will be in lower side. In that case,
probability of loss and damage to the system under the influence of external
hazards will be low.

When the physical and living elements of a system are at high risk of damage
under the impact of hazards, then disaster risk of the system will be very high.

Therefore, the disaster risk of any system depends on probable hazards to which
the system is exposed; vulnerability of the system, and elements in the system
which are at risk.

Elements at Risk  Hazard  Vulnerability

DISASTER RISK =
Capacity

The diagrammatic representation of disaster risk of a system is presented below.

8
 VULNERABLE DISASTER
HAZARD ENVIRONMENT

LESS D
DISTURBED
HAZARD VULNERABLE I
S
R
CAPACITY STABLE U
HAZARD HIGH SYSTEM P
T
I
SECONDARY STABLE O
DISTURBED Nher ied approachees
AFFECTare the trenghten SYSTEM

LIFE ECONOMY INFRASTRUCTURE COMMUNICATION

HEALTH EDUCATION LIVELIHOOD PRODUCTION EXCHANGE

Disaster risk could be redefined by considering probable impact of specific hazard as

Impact Rating and susceptibility of exposures to that hazard as Probability Rating.

Disaster Risk = Impact Rating x Probability Rating

Impact rating depicts probable impact of a specific hazard on our system, which depends
on frequency, magnitude, exposure time, length of forewarning and response time of
that specific hazard. Probability rating implies probability of occurrence of disaster
(damage, loss and negative impacts) in the system, which depends on vulnerability of the
system and their susceptibility to hazards.

Impact rating and Probability rating Matrix

Impact Rating
Small Minor Moderate Major Extreme
Probability Rating

Rare Low Low Low Medium Medium

Unlikely Low Low Medium Medium Medium
Moderate Low Medium Medium Medium High
Likely Medium Medium Medium High High
Very likely
Medium Medium High High High

Source: http://www.justgetpmp.com/2012/02/probability-and-impact-matrix.html
Levels of Disaster

9
The national guideline has categorized the level of disasters as Lo, L1, L2 and L3
and role and responsibility of different line departments to tackle disasters.

Level (0): It denotes the pre disaster period to be utilized for monitoring,
documentation, prevention, mitigation and preparedness related activities.
During this period, community to state level disaster management plans to be
prepared. Training on different aspects of disaster management to be carried out
during this period.

Level (1): It is the level of magnitude of the disasters that could be managed at the
district level with the support and assistance from state and central government,
as and when necessary.

Level (2): In this level, the district level agencies may not be able to manage the
situation. It may require direct assistance and support from state level disaster
management agencies, including mobilization of state counter disaster resources.

Level (3): It is the level of disasters, which is not manageable by district and state
level disaster management agencies. In this case, direct assistance from the centre
in terms manpower, equipment and fund will be required to control the situation.

Additional topics (from unit 02)

10
Selective models

A number of models have been developed by different groups of workers to

understand the complete process of disaster and its management. The popular
models are

Contract-Expand Model : describes process of disaster phenomena

Disaster Crunch Model : focuses on causes of disasters
Disaster Release Model : focuses on remedial measures for mitigating disaster
loss

Let us discuss the principles of these models briefly.

Contract-Expand Model (Kotze & Holloway, 1996)

This model is relevant to the progressive approach of disaster management and

relates disasters with differential vulnerabilities of our systems. The model was
used by the communities of South Africa to assess disaster risk, reduce disaster
loss, and prepare them to cope with disasters. The basic principle of this model is
based on the assumptions,

Assumption 1

“Disasters occur when a hazard exceeds a community’s capacity to manage It”.

That means, when magnitude of hazard and vulnerability of the system go
beyond the community’s capacity to handle these. This assumption describes
clearly the role of three components involved in the process of disaster and its
management i.e., hazard, vulnerability and capacity.

Assumption 2

“All components of disaster risk reduction can be carried out concurrently, but
with relative emphases”. This assumption suggests, the risk reduction mechanism
for any system has a number of components or steps, like assessment of
parameters involved in the process of disaster, damage mitigation strategies etc.
We can carry out all these activities simultaneously. But, these should be done
systematically based on priority. For this, we must have knowledge on role of
different parameters and their relationships.

Assumption 3

“Relative weighting of the activities depends on relationship between the Hazard

and vulnerability of the community at risk and technical or operational mandate

11
of the organizations involved”. This assumption describes, the nature and
weightage of different activities for disaster risk reduction depends on

 nature of external hazards and unsafe conditions of the vulnerable

community.

 how the internal negative factors of the locality or community and external
hazards are helping each other to cause maximum loss and damage to the
system.

 nature of technical and organizational supports required for disaster risk

reduction of the system.

Though this assumption is mainly based on social science approach, but it

addresses all three stages of disaster management; pre, during and after a
disaster.

Disaster Crunch Model (Blaikie et al. 1994)

This model deals with the causes of disasters, based on the study of hazards and
unsafe conditions, which make the communities vulnerable to hazards.

This model considers the differential vulnerability of our systems as the main
reasons of disasters. These are rooted in our socio-political and socio-economic
processes. According to the model, disaster may occur only when a hazard strikes
a vulnerable community having many unsafe conditions. That means, the unsafe
conditions or vulnerability of our own system dominate over external hazards in
the process of disaster.

The model suggests in-depth analysis of differential vulnerability of a system for

proper risk assessment and risk reduction planning. But, genuine vulnerability
assessment is a complex process, as it is difficult to study the dynamic pressures
and root causes of a single unsafe condition.

There are some visible or hidden root causes, which generate pressures on our
system and subsequently create a local unsafe condition. Therefore, an unsafe
condition of our system may not be solely responsible for occurrence of a disaster.

If we remove one local vulnerability factor of our system without removing its
root causes, the pressure will remain same to the community and within short
time the system will regain its original risk. In this case, temporarily we can get
relief, but next time we may face more severe problems.

Let us see an example of this model to understand the causes of flood induced
disaster.

12
 DISASTER One unsafe One or more One or more
HAZARD
condition pressures root causes

Extreme Severe Low carrying Heavy sediment Deforestation in

rainfall Flood capacity of river influx to river catchment area

Flow diagram of the progression of flood disaster

Using Disaster Crunch model, we can study the complete process of flood disaster
systematically involving hazard, vulnerability, dynamic pressure and root causes
of vulnerability. The prime conditions for river flood are

 The area is low-lying.

 There should be a river close to the area.

The hazard is certainly either continuous heavy rainfall or high intensity sudden
rainfall in the area or in the catchment area of the river.

One possible unsafe condition for flood may be low carrying capacity of the river.
The river may not have sufficient capacity to carry the runoff water in peak
season. As a result, water migrates in the surrounding low-lying areas.

It is not possible to solve the problem of flood by considering this local

vulnerability factor only. To find out a permanent solution, we need to address
the reasons of decreasing trend of carrying capacity of the river.

There may be few reasons or dynamic pressures for this particular vulnerability
factor like soil erosion in the catchment area, heavy sediment influx to the
riverbed, poor economy etc. We cannot simply eliminate these pressures or unsafe
condition without addressing their root causes.

What may be the root causes of soil erosion and sediment transport?

The possible root causes for soil erosion and sediment influx are deforestation in
the upper catchment area, shifting cultivation in hill areas, other human activities
in the carchment area, artificial landslide in the catchment area etc.

Like this, we can study the nature of hazard and progression of vulnerability
factors by identifying local unsafe conditions, dynamic pressures and root causes
of the unsafe conditions to understand the causes of disasters.

How we can minimize disaster risk of a system?

13
Disaster Release Model is useful to understand the principle of disaster risk
mitigation.

Let us consider the same example, considered in the case of Disaster Crunch
Model. We have already described the process if identifying the hazard
characteristics, unsafe condition, dynamic pressure and root causes of flood
disaster.

Reduce flood Reduce Reduce Address

HAZARD Risk vulnerability pressures root causes

Control To mitigate Improve carrying Reduce sediment Reforestation in

runoff flood damage capacity of river influx to river catchment area

To reduce flood risk, we can either minimize probability of occurrence of hazard

or reduce unsafe conditions by addressing root causes of the problems.

We cannot control rainfall. Therefore, we should try to reduce surface runoff of

rainwater in upper catchment area to minimize the intensity of hazard and
thereby reduction of flood risk in the lower catchment areas.

We can also minimize flood risk by reducing the vulnerability factors. Here, one
specified vulnerability factor is low carrying capacity of river. We can remove this
unsafe condition in two ways,

 We can improve the carrying capacity of river by dredging riverbed

locally. This is a very short time measure and expensive also.

 We can reduce pressures like soil erosion and sediment transport by

taking some corrective measures like, aforestation/reforestation in
catchment areas, alternative agriculture policy to stop shifting
cultivation, enforcement of land use regulation to stop unsustainable
and harmful developmental activities in the upper catchment areas etc.

Like this, we can make hazard and location specific risk assessment and risk
reduction plan by addressing probable threats, unsafe conditions, dynamic
pressures and root causes of the problems.

The changing concepts of understanding disaster risk and risk reduction

encouraging people to conduct in-depth research for new methodologies and
techniques suitable for disaster risk mitigation.

14
Different approaches to study disaster risk of a system

Natural hazard induced disasters are no longer considered as natural disasters.

Studies on Human-Environmental and Human-Ecological interferences are
getting importance in disaster risk assessment and risk reduction planning.

Human interference to our natural environment is mainly responsible for

increasing disaster risk of our platforms (Milete, 1980). According to Hewitt
(1983), vulnerability is the critical determinant factor of risk and impact of natural
hazard.

Most of the researchers are on the view that, disasters caused by natural hazards
are social problem. The nature of disasters depends on geographical location and
action of communities.

Now, study of natural hazards and disasters has become more complex and
multidisciplinary. People from different disciplines are involved in this field of
study. They have different views and approaches but a common agenda to find
out genuine methodology for disaster Risk Reduction.

Let us see few common approaches of study of natural hazards and disasters.
(Source: Natural Disaster by David Alexander)

Geographical approach (after Harland Barrows 1923; Gilbert F. White, 1945)

This approach of study specifically based on spatio-temporal distribution of

hazards, vulnerability and impact of hazard, and adjustment processes to natural
hazards.

Anthropological approach (Torry 1979)

This approach is focused on the study of finding out the role of disasters to socio-
economic evolution of populations and destruction of civilizations. According to
this approach, there is some limitation in the magnitude of disaster, beyond which
the affected communities cannot manage or provide the victims the basic
requirement for survival.

Sociological approach (Russel R. Dynes, 1970; Enrico, L. Quarantelli, 1978)

In this approach, the human attitude towards nature, socio-economic condition of

the community, and affects of disasters to community and organizations are
considered as determinants to study the vulnerability factors of the community
and probability of damage and disruption to a system. This approach also
considered the psychological affects of disasters, like, stress and trauma.

Development studies approach (Chen et al. 1980; Davis 1978; Knott 1987)

15
This approach deals with the post disaster problems relevant to relief and aid;
relief camp management, refugee management; health care; food etc. This also
shows the correlation between poverty and human vulnerability to natural
hazards.

Disaster medicine and epidemiology (Bolt et al. 1977; Beinin 1985; El-Sabh
1988)

It is comparatively a new field of study to address the post disaster medical

problems like, management of mass casualties, dealing with epidemic and
communicable diseases, treatment of trauma patients etc.

Technical approach (Bolt et al. 1977; El-Sabh & Murty 1988)

This approach is focused on management of disasters from technical and

engineering points of view, covering the geophysical and geomorphological
aspects of hazards and disasters.

Recommended books and references

1. Carter, W. N., Disaster Management: A Disaster Management Handbook,

Published by Asian Development Bank, 1991.
2. Study material: Fourth International Course on CBDM, ADPC, 2000
(Module-2, pp 4, 5, 6, 7, 37, 41)
3. Understanding Disasters, Internship Series, Vol. III, CEE, 2007
4. Alexander, D., Globalization of Disaster, Journal of International Affairs,
2006, Vol. 59, No. 2.
5. Alexander, D., Natural Disasters, Published by ULC press Ltd, London,
1993 (PP 4, 13, 16)
6. Chakrabarty, U. K., Industrial Disaster Management and Emergency
Response, Published by Asian Books Pvt. Ltd., 2007 (pp 20)
7. Reading Material: Training Programme on Environment and Disaster
Management, NIDM, 2010
8. National Disaster Management Guideline, Preparation of SDMA, NDMA,
2007, pp 14
9. Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and Wisner, B. (1994) At Risk: Natural
Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters, Routledge, London, pp 21-
29
10. Mileti, D. S., Human adjustment to the risk of environmental extremes,
Sociology and Social Research, 1980, Vol. 54, 327-47.
11. Hewitt, K., The Idea of Calamity in a Technocratic Age, In Interpretations
of Calamity, Allens and Unwin, London. 1983.

16
12. Barrows, H. H., Geography as human ecology, Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 1923, 13, 1-14
13. White, G. F., Human Adjustment to floods: a geographical approach to the
flood problems in United States, Chicago: Department of Geography,
University of Chicago, 1945.
14. Torry, W. I., Antrophological studies in hazardous environments: past
trends and new horizons, Current Anthropology, 1979, 20, 517-40.
15. Dynes, R. R., Organised behaviour in disaster, Lexington, Mass: D. C.
Heath (Lexington Books) 1970.
16. Quarantelli, E. L., Disasters: theory and research, Beverly Hills: Sage. 1978.
17. Chen, L. C., A. K. M. Chowdhury, S. L. Hoffman, Anthropometric
assessment of energy-protein malnutrition and subsequent risk of
mortality among pre school age children, American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, 1980, 33, 1836-45.
18. Devis, I., Shelter after disaster, Headington, Oxford: Oxford Polytechnic
Press, 1978.
19. Knott, R., The logistics of bulk relief supplies, Disasters, 1987, 11, 113-6
20. Bolt, B. A., Horn, W. L., MacDonald, G. A., Scott R. F., Geological Hazards:
earthquake, tsunami, volcanoes, avalanches, landslide, floods, 2 nd Edition,
New York: Springer, 1977.
21. Beinin, L, Medical consequences of natural disasters, New York: Springer,
1985.
22. El-Sabh, M. I. & Murty, T. S., Natural and man-made hazards, Dordrecht:
Kluwer.

Compiled by
Dr. Dipak Nath
Centre for Disaster Management
Tezpur University

17