Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Summary QUARTER-CENTURY AGO geographer Gilbert F. White Aana SOClOlOglSt J. Eugene Baas puollsnea a ploneer- ing report on the nation's ability to withstand and respond to natural disasters. At that time, research on disasters was dominated by physical scientists and engineers. As White and Haas pointed out in their . . . . .. . Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards, little attempt had been made to tap the social sciences to better understand the economic, social, and political ramifications of extreme natural events. White and Haas attempted to fill this void. But they also advanced the critical notion that rather than simply picking up the pieces after disasters, the nation could employ better planning, land-use controls, and other preventive and mitigation measures to reduce the toll in the first place. Today, at long last, public and private programs and policies have begun to adopt mitigation as the cornerstone of the nation's approach to addressing natural and technological hazards. The 1975 report also had a profound impact by paving the way for an interdisciplinary approach to research and management, giving birth to a "hazards
2 Disasters by Design community" people from many fields and agencies who address the myriad aspects of natural disasters. Hazards research now encompasses disciplines such as climatology, economics, engineering, geography, geology, law, meteorology, planning, seismology, and sociology. Profes- sionals in those and other fields have continued to investigate how engi- neering projects, warnings, land use management, planning for response and recovery, insurance, and building codes can help individuals and groups adapt to natural hazards, as well as reduce the resulting deaths, injuries, costs, and social, environmental, and economic disruption. These dedicated people have greatly improved our understanding of the physi- cal processes underlying natural hazards and the complexities of social decision making before, during, and after disasters. Yet troubling ques- tions remain about why more progress has not been made in reducing dollar losses. One central problem is that many of the accepted methods for cop- ing with hazards have been based on the idea that people can use tech- nology to control nature to make themselves safe. What's more, most strategies for managing hazards have followed a traditional planning model: study the problem, implement one solution, and move on to the next problem. This approach casts hazards as static and mitigation as an upward, positive, linear trend. But events during the past quarter-century have shown that natural disasters and the technological hazards that may accompany them are not problems that can be solved in isolation. Rather, they are symptoms of broader and more basic problems. Losses from hazards and the fact that the nation cannot seem to reduce them result from shortsighted and narrow conceptions of the human relationship to the natural envi ronment. To redress those shortcomings, the nation must shift to a policy of "sustainable hazard mitigation." This concept links wise management of natural resources with local economic and social resiliency, viewing haz- ard mitigation as an integral part of a much larger context. Many aspects of this strategy were implicit in the recommendations formulated by White and Haas a quarter-century ago. But to head off the continued rise in tolls from disasters, those principles must become more explicit. This book reflects the efforts of over a hundred experts who have worked and debated since 1994 to take stock of Americans' relationship to hazards past, present, and most importantly future. Those contri
Summary buttons have been used to outline a comprehensive approach to enhanc- ing society's ability to reduce the costs of disaster. The Roots of the Problem 3 Many disaster losses rather than stemming from unexpected events are the predictable result of interactions among three major sys- tems: the physical environment, which includes hazardous events; the social and demographic characteristics of the communities that experi- ence them; and the buildings, roads, bridges, and other components of the constructed environment. Growing losses result partly from the fact that the nation's capital stock is expanding, but they also stem from the fact that all these systems and their interactions are becoming more complex with each passing year. Three main influences are at work. First, the earth's physical systems are constantly changing witness the current warming of the global cli- mate. Scientists expect a warming climate to produce more dramatic meteorological events such as storms, floods, drought, and extreme tem- peratures. Second, recent and projected changes in the demographic com- position and distribution of the U.S. population mean greater exposure to many hazards. The number of people residing in earthquake-prone regions and coastal counties subject to hurricanes, for example, is grow- ing rapidly. Worsening inequality of wealth also makes many people more vulnerable to hazards and less able to recover from them. Third, the built environment public utilities, transportation systems, commu- nications, and homes and office buildings is growing in density, mak- ing the potential losses from natural forces larger. Settlement of hazardous areas has also destroyed local ecosystems that could have provided protection from natural perils. The draining of swamps in Florida and the bulldozing of steep hillsides for homes in California, for example, have disrupted natural runoff patterns and mag- nified flood hazards. And many mitigation efforts themselves degrade the environment and thus contribute to the next disaster. For example, levees built to provide flood protection can destroy riparian habitat and heighten downstream floods. Another major problem has become clear over the past 20 years: some efforts to head off damages from natural hazards only postpone them. For example, communities below dams or behind levees may avoid losses from floods those structures were designed to prevent. But such communities often have more property to lose when those structures fail,
4 Disasters by Design because additional development occurred that counted on protection. Such a situation contributed to catastrophic damage from the 1993 floods in the Mississippi basin. And many of the nation's dams, bridges, and other structures are approaching the end of their designed life, revealing how little thought their backers and builders gave to events 50 years hence. Similarly, by providing advance warnings of severe storms, this country may well have encouraged more people to build in fragile coastal areas. Such development, in turn, makes the areas more vulnerable by destroying dunes and other protective natural features. Fostering Local Sustainability Sustainability means that a locality can tolerate and overcome- damage, diminished productivity, and reduced quality of life from an extreme event without significant outside assistance. To achieve sus- tainability, communities must take responsibility for choosing where and how development proceeds. Toward that end, each locality evaluates its environmental resources and hazards, chooses future losses that it is will Disaster Losses Are Growing From 1975 to 1994, natural hazards killed over 24,000 people and injured some 100,000 in the United States and its territories. About one-quarter of the deaths and half the injuries resulted from events that society would label as disasters. The rest resulted from less dramatic but more frequent events such as lightning strikes, car crashes owing to fog, and localized landslides. The United States has succeeded in saving lives and reducing injuries from some natural hazards such as hurricanes over the last two decades. However, casualties from floods-the nation's most frequent and injurious natural hazard have failed to decline substantially. And deaths from lightning and tornadoes have remained con- stant. Meanwhile injuries and deaths from dust storms, extreme cold, wildfire, and tropical storms have grown. The dollar losses associated with most types of natural hazards are rising. A conser- vative estimate of total dollar losses during the past two decades is $500 billion (in 1994 dollars). More than 80 percent of these costs stemmed from climatological events, while around 10 percent resulted from earthquakes and volcanoes. Only 17
Summary 5 ing to bear, and ensures that development and other community actions and policies adhere to those goals. Six objectives must simultaneously be reached to mitigate hazards in a sustainable way and stop the national trend toward increasing cata . . . stropn~c losses from natural disasters. · Maintain and enhance environmental quality. Human activities to mitigate hazards should not reduce the carrying capacity of the eco- system, for doing so increases losses from hazards in the longer term. · Maintain undo enhance people's quality of life. A population's quality of life includes, among other factors, access to income, educa- tion, health care, housing, and employment, as well as protection from disaster. To become sustainable, local communities must consciously define the quality of life they want and select only those mitigation strat- egies that do not detract from any aspect of that vision. · Foster local resiliency and responsibility. Resiliency to disasters means a locale can withstand an extreme natural event with a tolerable level of losses. It takes mitigation actions consistent with achieving that level of protection. percent were insured. Determining losses with a higher degree of accuracy is impos- sible because the United States has not established a systematic reporting method or a single repository for the data. Further, these numbers do not include indirect costs such as downtime for businesses, lost employment, environmental damage, or emo- tional effects on victims. Most of these losses result from events too small to qualify for federal assistance, and most are not insured, so victims must bear the costs. Seven of the ten most costly disasters based on dollar losses in U.S. history occurred between 1989 and 1994. In fact, since 1989 the nation has frequently en- tered periods in which losses from catastrophic natural disasters averaged about $1 billion per week. The dramatic increase in disaster losses is expected to continue. Many of the harshest recent disasters could have been far worse: had Hurricane Andrew been slower and wetter or torn through downtown Miami, for example, it would have wreaked devastation even more profound than the damage it did inflict. And the most catastrophic likely events, including a great earthquake in the Los Angeles area, have not yet occurred. Such a disaster would cause up to 5,000 deaths, 15,000 serious injuries, and $250 billion in direct economic losses.
6 Disasters by Design · Recognize that vibrant local economies are essential. Communi- ties should take mitigation actions that foster a strong local economy rather than detract from one. · Ensure inter- and intra-generationa' equity. A sustainable com- munity selects mitigation activities that reduce hazards across all ethnic, racial, and income groups, and between genders equally, now and in the future. The costs of today's advances are not shifted onto later genera- tions or less powerful groups. · Adopt local consensus building. A sustainable community selects mitigation strategies that evolve from full participation among all public and private stakeholders. The participatory process itself may be as im- portant as the outcome. ~ ~ r r ~ .r a. ~ · 1 1 A long-term, comprehensive plan for averting disaster losses and encouraging sustainability offers a locality the opportunity to coordinate its goals and policies. A community can best forge such a plan by tapping businesses and residents as well as experts and government officials. And while actual planning and follow-through must occur at the local level, a great deal of impetus must come from above. Nothing short of strong leadership from state and federal governments will ensure that planning for sustainable hazard mitigation and development occurs. Mitigation Tools Over the past few decades an array of techniques and practices has evolved to reduce and cope with losses from hazards and disasters. These and other tools will be vital in pursuing sustainable hazard mitigation. Who is at Risk Research has shown that people are typically unaware of all the risks and choices they face. They plan only for the immediate future, overestimate their ability to cope when disaster strikes, and rely heavily on emergency relief. Hazard researchers now also recognize that demographic differences play a large role in determining the risks people encounter, whether and how they prepare for disasters, and how they fare when disasters occur. For example, non-minorities and
Summary Land Use 7 Wise land-use planning that limits expansion into sensitive areas is essential to sustainable hazard mitigation. Indeed, land-use planning, hazard mitigation, and sustainable communities are concepts with a shared vision in which people and property are kept out of the way of hazards, the mitigative qualities of the natural environment are main- tained, and development is resilient in the face of natural forces. Unfortunately, no overarching guidance informs development in hazard-prone areas. Instead, a patchwork of innumerable federal, state, and local regulations creates a confusing picture and often reduces short- term losses while allowing the potential for catastrophic losses to grow. This scattershot approach, as well as the federal and state trend to cut risk and assume liability, have undermined the responsibility of local governments for using land-use management techniques to reduce expo- sure to hazards. Warnings Since the first assessment was completed, significant improvements in short-term forecasts and warnings (hours to days ahead of a hazard- ous event) have dramatically reduced loss of life and injury in the United States. Yet many communities lag in their ability to provide citizens with effective warning messages. The nation needs to make local warning sys- tems more uniform, develop a comprehensive mode! for how they work, and provide this information to local communities along with technical assistance. Better local management and decision making are now more critical than most future advances in technology. households with higher socioeconomic status fare better, while low-income house- holds are at greater risk mainly because they live in lower-quality housing, and because disasters exacerbate poverty. The need for mitigation and response efforts that acknowledge the demographic differences among the nation's citizens will become even more critical as the U.S. population becomes more diverse. Research is also needed to shed further light on how mitigation programs ranging from public education to disaster relief can be ren- dered equitably.
8 Disasters by Design It's also important to remember that short-term warning systems do not significantly limit damage to the built environment, nor do they miti- gate economic disruption from disasters. Long-range forecasts that help define the risks to local communities years to decades ahead of potential hazards could assist local decisionmakers in designing their communities to endure them. Engineering andt building codles The ability of the built environment to withstand the impacts of natu- ral forces plays a direct role in determining the casualties and dollar costs of disasters. Disaster-resistant construction of buildings and infrastruc- ture is therefore an essential component of local resiliency. Engineering codes, standards, and practices have been promulgated for natural haz- ards. Local governments have also traditionally enacted building codes. However, investigations after disasters have revealed shortcomings in construction techniques and code enforcement. Codes, standards, and practices for all hazards must be reevaluated in light of the goal of sus- tainable mitigation, and communities must improve adherence to them. l nsurance The public increasingly looks to insurance to compensate for losses from many types of risk-taking behavior. However, most property own- ers do not buy coverage against special perils, notably earthquakes, hur- ricanes, and floods. For example, nationwide only about 20 percent of the homes exposed to floods are insured for them. Many people assume that federal disaster assistance will function as a kind of hazard insur- ance, but such aid is almost always limited. And even when larger amounts are available, they are usually offered in the form of loans, not outright grants. Insurance does help minimize some disruption by ensuring that people with coverage receive compensation for their losses as they begin to recover. The insurance industry could facilitate mitigation by provid- ing information and education, helping to create model codes, offering financial incentives that encourage mitigation, and limiting the availabil- ity of insurance in high-hazard areas. The industry already has problems providing insurance in areas sub- ject to catastrophic losses because many insurers do not have the re- sources to pay for a worst-case event. Furthermore, the current regula
Summary tory system makes it difficult to aggregate adequate capital to cover low- frequency but high-consequence events. New technology 9 Computer-mediated communication systems, geographic informa- tion systems (GIS), remote sensing, electronic decision-support systems, and risk-analysis techniques have developed substantially during the last two decades and show great promise for supporting sustainable hazard mitigation. For example, GIS models enable managers to consolidate in- formation from a range of disciplines, including the natural and social sciences and engineering, and to formulate plans accordingly. Remote sensing can be used to make land-use maps and show changes over time, feed information to GIS models, and gather informa- tion in the wake of disasters. Finally, decision-support systems can fill a gap in hazards management by analyzing information from core data- bases, including data on building inventories, infrastructure, demograph- ics, and risk. The systems can then be used to ask "what-if" questions about future losses to inform today's decision making. Such systems are now constrained by the lack of comprehensive local data, but they will become more important as the process of evaluating and managing risk . . grows in comp" ex1ty. Essential Steps The shift to a sustainable approach to hazard mitigation will require extraordinary actions. Here are several essential steps; note that many initial efforts are already under way. Build local networks, capability, and consensus Today hazard specialists, emergency planners, resource managers, community planners, and other local stakeholders seek to solve prob lems on their own. An approach is needed to forge local consensus on disaster resiliency and nurture it through the complex challenges of plan- ning and implementation. One potential approach is a "sustainable hazard mitigation network" in each of the nation's communities that would engage in collaborative problem solving. Each network would produce an integrated, compre- hensive plan linking land-use, environmental, social, and economic goals.
10 Disasters by Design An effective plan would also identify hazards, estimate potential losses, and assess the region's environmental carrying capacity. The stakeholder network especially needs to determine the amount and kind of damage that those who experience disasters can bear. These plans would enable policymakers, businesses, and residents to understand the limitations of their region and work together to address them. Full consensus may never be reached, but the process is key because it can generate ideas and foster the sense of community required to mitigate hazards. This kind of holistic approach will also situate mitigation in the con- text of other community goals that, historically, have worked against action to reduce hazards. Finally, the process will advance the idea that each locality controls the character of its disasters, forcing stakeholders to take responsibility for natural hazards and resources and realize that the decisions they make today will determine future losses. Federal and state agencies could provide leadership in this process by sponsoring-through technical and financial support a few prototype networks such as mode! communities or regional projects. Establish ~ holistic government framework To facilitate sustainable mitigation, all policies and programs related to hazards and sustainability should be integrated and consistent. One Emergency Preparedness anti Recovery Even if encouraged by more holistic state and federal policies, sustainable hazard mitigation will never eliminate the need for plans to address the destruction and human suffering imposed by disasters. In fact, one way to progress toward sustainable hazard mitigation is by creating policies for disaster preparedness, response, and recovery that support that goal. A great deal of research has focused on pre-disaster planning and response since the 1975 assessment. Studies have found that pre-disaster planning can save lives and injuries, limit property damage, and minimize disruptions, enabling communities to recover more quickly. Recovery was once viewed as a linear phenomenon, with discrete stages and end products. Today it is seen as a process that entails decision making and interaction among all stakeholders households, businesses, and the community at large. Re
Summary 11 possible approach toward this goal is a conference or series of confer- ences that enable federal, state, county, and city officials to reexamine the statutory and regulatory foundations of hazard mitigation and pre- paredness, in light of the principles of sustainable mitigation. Potential changes include limiting the subsidization of risk, making better use of incentives, setting a federal policy for guiding land use, and fostering collaboration among agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. Other efforts to foster a comprehensive government framework could include a joint congressional committee hearing, a congressional report, a conference by the American Planning Association to review experiences in sample communities, and a joint meeting of federal, state, and professional research organizations. Conduct ~ nationwide hazard and risk assessment Not enough is known about the changes in or interactions among the physical, social, and constructed systems that are reshaping the nation's hazardous future. A national risk assessment should meld infor- mation from those three systems so hazards can be estimated interactively and comprehensively, to support local efforts on sustainable mitigation. Local planning will require multi-hazard, community-scale risk as search has also shown that recovery is most effective when community-based organi- zations assume principal responsibility, supplemented by outside technical and finan cial assistance. An even further shift away from an exclusive focus on restoring dam- aged structures toward effective decision making at all levels may be needed. Outside technical assistance can help strengthen local organizational and decision-making ca- pacity. Local leaders too often fail to take advantage of the recovery period to reshape their devastated communities to withstand future events. Most local disaster plans need to be extended not only to explicitly address recovery and reconstruction but to identify opportunities for rebuilding in safer ways and in safer places. Fortunately, revisions to disaster legislation in the last several years have allowed a greater percentage of federal relief monies to fund mitigation programs. Pre-disaster planning for post-disaster recovery is vital to communities' ability to become disaster resilient.
12 Disasters by Design sessment maps that incorporate information ranging from global physi- cal processes to local resources and buildings. This information is not now available, and will require federal investment in research on risk- analysis tools and dissemination to local governments. Build national databases The nation must collect, analyze, and store standardized data on losses from past and current disasters, thereby establishing a baseline for comparison with future losses. This database should include information on the types of losses, their locations, their specific causes, and the actual dollar amounts, taking into account problems of double-counting, com- parisons with gross domestic product, and the distinction between re- gional and national impacts. A second database is needed to collate in- formation on mitigation efforts what they are, where they occur, and how much they cost to provide a baseline for local cost-benefit analy A New Approach to Hazards Researchers and practitioners in the hazards community need to shift their strategy to cope with the complex factors that contribute to disasters in today's and espe- cially tomorrow's world. Here are the main guidelines for improving our ability to mitigate hazards. · Adopt a global systems perspective. Rather than resulting from surprise environmental events, disasters arise from the interactions among the earth's physical systems, its human systems, and its built infrastructure. A broad view that encom- passes all three of these dynamic systems and interactions among them can enable professionals to find better solutions. · Accept responsibility for hazards and disasters. Human beings not nature are the cause of disaster losses, which stem from choices about where and how human development will proceed. Nor is there a final solution to natural hazards, since technology cannot make the world safe from ALL the forces of nature. · Anticipate ambiguity and change. The view that hazards are relatively static has led to the false conclusion that any mitigation effort is desirable and will in some vague way reduce the grand total of future losses. In reality, change can occur quickly
Summary 13 sis. These archives are fundamental to informed decision making and should be accessible to the public. A central repository for hazard-related social science data is also lacking. This third central archive would speed development of stan- dards for collecting and analyzing information on the social aspects of hazards and disasters. Provide comprehensive education and training Today hazard managers are being called upon to tackle problems they have never before confronted, such as understanding complex physi- cal and social systems, conducting sophisticated cost-benefit analyses, and offering long-term solutions. Education in hazard mitigation and preparedness should therefore expand to include interdisciplinary and holistic degree programs. Members of the higher education community will have to invent university-based programs that move away from and nonlinearly. Human adaptation to hazards must become as dynamic as the prob- lems presented by hazards themselves. · Reject short-term thinking. Mitigation as frequently conceived is too short- sighted. In general, people have a cultural and economic predisposition to think prima rily in the short term. Sustainable mitigation will require a longer-term view that takes into account the overall effect of mitigation efforts on this and future generations. · Account for social forces. Societal factors, such as how people view both hazards and mitigation efforts or how the free market operates, play a critical role in determining which steps are actually taken, which are overlooked, and thus the extent of future disaster losses. Because such social forces are now known to be much more powerful than disaster specialists previously thought, growing understanding of physical systems and improved technology cannot suffice. To effectively address natural haz- ards, mitigation must become a basic social value. · Embrace sustainable development principles. Disasters are more likely where unsustainable development occurs, and the converse is also true: disasters hinder movement toward sustainability because, for example, they degrade the environment and undercut the quality of life. Sustainable mitigation activities should strengthen a community's social, economic, and environmental resiliency, and vice versa.
14 Disasters by Design traditional disciplines toward interdisciplinary education that solves the real-world problems entailed in linking hazards and sustainability. This will require not only new degree programs but also changes in the way institutions of higher education reward faculty, who now are encouraged to do theoretical work. Measure progress Baselines for measuring sustainability should be established now so the nation can gauge future progress. Interim goals for mitigation and other aspects of managing hazards should be set, and progress in reach- ing those goals regularly evaluated. This effort will require determining how to apply criteria such as disaster resiliency, environmental quality, intra- and inter-generational equity, quality of life, and economic vitality to the plans and programs of local communities. Also important is evaluating hazard-mitigation efforts already in place before taking further steps in the same direction. For example, the National Flood Insurance Program, which combines insurance, incen- tives, and land-use and building standards, has existed for 30 years, yet its effectiveness has never been thoroughly appraised. Each disaster yields new knowledge relevant to hazard mitigation and disaster response and recovery, yet no entity collects this informa- tion systematically, synthesizes it into a coherent body of knowledge, and evaluates the nation's progress in putting knowledge into practice. Systematic post-disaster audits, called for in the 1975 assessment by White and Haas, are still needed. Share knowledge internationally The United States must share knowledge and technology related to sustainable hazard mitigation with other nations, and be willing to learn from those nations as well. Both here and abroad, disaster experts also need to collaborate with development experts to address the root causes of vulnerability to hazards, including overgrazing, deforestation, pov- erty, and unplanned development. Disaster reduction should be an inher- ent part of everyday development processes, and international develop- ment projects must consider vulnerability to disaster.
Summary 15 The Key Role of the Hazards Community To support sustainable hazard mitigation, researchers and practitio- ners need to ask new questions as well as continue to investigate tradi- tional topics. Important efforts will include interdisciplinary research and education, and the development of local hazard assessments, computer- generated decision-making aids, and holistic government policies. Future work must also focus on techniques for enlisting public and governmental support for making sustainable hazard mitigation a funda- mental social value. Members of the hazards community will play a criti- cal role in initiating the urgently needed nationwide conversation on at- taining that goal.
