Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 25
"We need to recognize that the decision to allow pre-
code buildings to stay unretrofitted against local hazards means that
the portion of our population that live and work in those buildings
face higher than average risks than the populations that are in the
newer buildings. [We] need to work to change the dynamic that the
areas of town that are most affordable are also the areas facing
greater hydrological, geological and ecological risks."
Citizen from King County,
Washington, 2011
2
The Foundation for Building a Resilient Nation:
Understanding, Managing, and Reducing Disaster Risks
Understanding, managing, and reducing disaster risks provide a
foundation for building resilience to disasters. Risk represents the potential for
hazards to cause adverse effects on our lives; health; economic well-being;
social, environmental, and cultural assets; infrastructure; and the services
expected from institutions and the environment (Figure 2.1). The perceptions of
and choices made about risk shape how individuals, groups, and public- and
private-sector organizations behave, how they respond during and after a
disaster event, and how they plan for future disasters. Most people have some
sense of what risk means to them. However, when pressed to identify or assess
disaster risk, or determine how to select among available options for managing
it, "risk" becomes more difficult to articulate.
This chapter focuses on the importance of understanding risk and risk
management as essential steps toward increasing resilience to hazards and
disasters. This chapter examines how hazards are identified and how disaster
risks are assessed and perceived. Based on this understanding, the chapter
summarizes a range of options to mitigate and manage risk. Some of the
characteristics of individual and collective decision-making processes--what we
know and how we know it--are also described, as are challenges and
opportunities that decision makers face in managing risk. Challenges in
managing risk due, for example, to inadequate data, to misperceptions of or
biases in risk information, to insufficient commitment to use risk management
tools, or to lack of communication among stakeholders are also identified. The
chapter concludes with several key themes that serve as a foundation for
managing risk and increasing disaster resilience for a community, a business, a
state, or the nation. Although the chapter directs its discussion of risk and risk
management toward general situations using evidence from the published
literature, the committee recognizes the importance of the actual practice of risk
management. The chapter therefore also draws upon examples from the field
25
OCR for page 26
26 DISASTER RESILIENCE: A NATIONAL IMPERATIVE
and from the standpoint of key decision makers and organizations concerned
with addressing disaster risk and increasing resilience.
FIGURE 2.1 Floodwaters rise through downtown Cedar Rapids, June 2008, when the Cedar River
finally crested at 31.12 feet, more than 19 feet above the flood stage.
Source: AP photo/Jeff Robertson.
UNDERSTANDING RISK
Disaster risk comprises four elements: hazard, exposure, vulnerability,
and consequence (International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development/World Bank, 2010) (Box 2.1). Hazard refers to the likelihood and
characteristics of the occurrence of a natural process or phenomenon that can
produce damaging impacts (e.g., severe ground shaking, wind speeds, or flood
inundation depths) on a community.1 Exposure refers to the community's assets
(people, property, and infrastructure) subject to the hazard's damaging impacts.
Exposure is calculated from data about the value, location, and physical
dimensions of an asset; construction type, quality, and age of specific structures;
spatial distribution of those occupying the structures; and characteristics of the
natural environment such as wetlands, ecosystems, flora, and fauna that could
either mitigate effects from or be impacted by the hazard.
1
The term "community" throughout the report is used very broadly to incorporate the full range of
scales of community organization--from the scale of a neighborhood to that of a city, county, state,
multistate region, or the entire nation. Where a specific kind of community is intended, the chapter
adds the appropriate descriptor.
OCR for page 27
THE FOUNDATION FOR BUILDING A RESILIENT NATION 27
Vulnerability is the potential for harm to the community and relates to
physical assets (building design and strength), social capital (community
structure, trust, and family networks), and political access (ability to get
government help and affect policies and decisions). Vulnerability also refers to
how sensitive a population may be to a hazard or to disruptions caused by the
hazard. The sensitivity can affect the ability of these populations to be resilient
to disasters (NRC, 2006b; Cutter et al., 2003, 2008). Vulnerability is projected
by the presence and effectiveness of measures taken to avoid or reduce the
impact of the hazard through physical or structural methods (e.g., levees,
floodwalls, or disaster-resistant construction) and through nonstructural actions
(e.g., relocation, temporary evacuation, land-use zoning, building codes,
insurance, forecasts, and early warning systems), or construction-related and
nonconstruction-related methods.2
BOX 2.1
What Is Disaster Risk?
For the purpose of the report, we have adopted a broad definition of
risk. The definition presented in this chapter draws common elements from
among a range of existing definitions and the communities that provide them.
Most definitions take into account elements of hazard (what could happen to
trigger damage), exposure (what is at stake), vulnerability (the level of
sensitivity to a hazard), and consequences (the impact or damage caused by the
hazard). We refer to disaster risk as the potential for adverse effects from the
occurrence of a particular hazardous event, which is derived from the
combination of physical hazards, the exposure, and vulnerabilities (Peduzzi et
al., 2009; IPCC, 2012). Similarly, we use the term disaster risk management (or
simply risk management) to include the suite of social processes engaged in the
design, implementation, and evaluation of strategies to improve understanding,
foster disaster risk reduction, and promote improvements in preparedness,
response, and recovery efforts (IPCC, 2012).
Consequences are the result of the hazard event impacting the exposure
in a region or community, taking into account the degree of the community's
vulnerability. Consequences can be immediate (e.g., the loss of human lives,
injuries, damaged buildings, businesses), or long term (e.g., environmental
2
The terms structural and nonstructural as they are applied in this report reflect the use of these
terms in the flood, hurricane, tsunami, and to a lesser degree, the earthquake arena. Within the
emergency management community, the terms are used interchangeably to describe certain
mitigation measures. Although the report is consistent in its use of these terms and not outside the
norm, nonstructural mitigation has a very specific meaning in engineering circles (it only refers to
contents and other building elements not related to structural strength). For the purposes of this
report, the committee uses the terms "structural" and "construction-related" and their opposites
interchangeably.
OCR for page 28
28 DISASTER RESILIENCE: A NATIONAL IMPERATIVE
damage or physical and mental health impacts), and influence the overall well-
being and quality of life for the community (Heinz Center, 2000). Consequences
may also extend far beyond the area immediately affected by the hazard--
cascading impacts on a supply chain, for example, may have a national or global
effect. Lastly, consequences may be mitigated by such measures as insurance,
continuity, and recovery plans by businesses and governments, and actions by
the state and community such as well-enforced building codes and land-use
planning. These measures, put into place either individually or in concert with
one another, can greatly reduce the potential losses and facilitate a much
speedier recovery from future disaster events, thereby contributing to increasing
resilience.
MANAGING RISK
Risk management is a process that examines and weighs policies,
plans, and actions for reducing the impact of a hazard or hazards on people,
property, and the environment. Ideally, risk is managed in the most effective and
equitable way subject to available resources and technical capabilities. Under
the best circumstances, risk management includes risk reduction strategies that
draw upon scientific, engineering, social, economic, and political expertise. An
important aspect of risk management is providing realistic expectations as to
what can be accomplished using specific strategies and the relative costs and
benefits of undertaking proposed measures (see also Chapter 3). Managing
expectations is also important because disaster risks cannot be eliminated
completely even with the most appropriate and successful risk management
strategies. Importantly also, some tools or actions that can reduce short-term risk
may increase long-term risk, requiring careful evaluation of the risk
management strategies employed. Although some residual risk will always
require attention, risk management can help build capacity to become more
resilient to disasters, particularly when everyone in a community is engaged in
managing risk (Box 2.2; see also Chapter 5).
The Risk Management Process
Risk management is a continuous process that begins with establishing
goals, values, and objectives of the affected and interested parties in the public
and private sectors as well as citizen groups and nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) (Keeney, 1992; Sayers et al., 2012) (Figure 2.2). For an affected
community, the basis for goal setting begins with questions such as:
· What risks are we facing?
· What risks are we willing to tolerate?
· What risks are not acceptable under any circumstances?
OCR for page 29
THE FOUNDATION FOR BUILDING A RESILIENT NATION 29
BOX 2.2
Role of Emergency Managers in Risk Management and Disaster Resilience
Although progressive emergency managers anticipate future disasters
and take preventive and preparatory measures to build disaster-resistant and
disaster-resilient communities, many people are of the opinion that the general
field of emergency management does not yet give enough attention to
prevention and mitigation activities. Traditionally, emergency managers have
confined their activities to developing emergency response plans and
coordinating the initial response to disasters. In the future, emergency managers
may need to become more strategic in their thinking about disasters in order to
help communities respond to the risks they face. The role of the emergency
manager necessitates a high degree of technical competence, but is increasingly
evolving to include the roles of a manager and a policy advisor who oversee
community-wide programs to address risk in all phases of the emergency
management cycle. This cycle envelops the characteristics of resilience--to
assist communities in preparing and planning for, absorbing, recovering from,
and successfully adapting to adverse events. As key actors in risk management
and increasing resilience in communities, emergency managers are required to
understand how to assess hazards and reduce vulnerability, and to seek the
support of public officials and the enforcement of ordinances that reduce
vulnerability.
The goals and objectives of the community reflect the values of the key
interested parties, current laws, public-sector institutional arrangements at the
local, state and federal levels, and existing programs and policies (e.g., the
National Flood Insurance Program [NFIP], the California Earthquake Authority,
or homeowners insurance offered by the private sector).
Once goals, values, and objectives are established by the nation, state,
and/or a community, the next step in the disaster risk management process is to
identify the hazards (e.g., earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts,
ice storms and blizzards, wildfires, landslides, volcanic eruptions, infectious
diseases, terrorism, biohazards) and determine whether exposure to them can
cause adverse impacts to property, people, and the environment. Assessing risk,
the next step in the process, is an assessment of the potential impacts associated
with these hazards. Risk assessment provides estimates of potential losses to
lives and property and some estimate of annual likelihood of occurrence.
Sensitivity analysis--part of risk assessment--estimates the efficacy of specific
programs and policies in reducing or managing the risk associated with the
hazard. Risk management strategies and decisions specify the types of
information collected by different interested parties in the community and how
these data are perceived and used in formulating strategies and programs for
managing risk. One of the key factors in risk strategy implementation is
determining which risks are acceptable or tolerable and which ones are not;
OCR for page 30
30 DISASTER RESILIENCE: A NATIONAL IMPERATIVE
those that are not tolerable thus require management or mitigation (NRC, 2010).
The potential consequences of hazards, including losses or disruptions, coupled
with the perceptions of risks and consequences play into which risk strategies
are used and how they are implemented.
FIGURE 2.2 Continuous and reinforcing process of disaster risk management as a foundation for
building resilient communities. Central to the risk management process is the collective evaluation
by the community members--including individuals, emergency managers, governing officials, the
private sector, and NGOs--of community goals, values, and objectives for the risk management
strategy and for community resilience. The entire process, divided for convenience of discussion
into six steps, encompasses the ability to identify and assess the local hazards and risks (steps 1 and
2), to make decisions as to which strategies or plans are most effective to address those hazards and
risks and implement them (steps 3 and 4), and to review and evaluate the risk management plan and
relevant risk policies (steps 5 and 6). The continuity of the process allows a community effectively
to "enter" risk management at any point in the "cycle," though identification of basic hazards and
assessment of risks is of primary importance.
The last two steps in the disaster risk management process are to
continuously review and evaluate risk strategies and to adjust or develop risk
management policies. Although often overlooked, these steps are important,
particularly as new opportunities arise, as policies are enacted, or as community
goals shift. In designing and evaluating strategies for risk management, new
information or data are also important to take into account. Such information
may include, for example, knowledge of increased building development in
known hazard areas that could increase the exposure to the hazard; the potential
impacts of climate change that could affect the intensity or frequency of the
hazard; and new and more accurate measurements of key parameters such as
OCR for page 31
THE FOUNDATION FOR BUILDING A RESILIENT NATION 31
precipitation, geological activity along faults, or coastal erosion that influence
the way in which a hazard is understood and addressed. Recent disasters in the
community or elsewhere can provide lessons and new points of useful
information. By recognizing and reviewing risk strategies and available (and
sometimes new) data on hazards and their impacts, adjustments can be made to
overcome deficiencies and improve the existing set of policies, institutional
arrangements, and strategies to develop new ones, allowing the risk management
cycle to begin again. Emergency managers use risk management principles
described in this cycle to establish priorities for the communities within their
jurisdiction (Box 2.3).
BOX 2.3
Emergency Managers as Risk Management Practitioners
The following is extracted from the document "Principles of
Emergency Management" (IAEM, 2007) and identifies some of the principles of
emergency management that relate to the role of emergency managers as
practitioners of risk management:
Emergency managers generally employ risk management principles
such as hazard identification and risk analysis to identify priorities, allocate
resources and use resources effectively. . . . Setting policy and programmatic
priorities is therefore based upon measured levels of risk to lives, property, and
the environment. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1600 states
that emergency management programs should identify and monitor hazards, the
likelihood of their occurrence, and the vulnerability to those hazards of people,
property, the environment, and the emergency program itself. The Emergency
Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) Standard echoes this requirement
for public sector emergency management programs. . . . Emergency managers
are seldom in a position to direct the activities of the many agencies and
organizations involved in emergency management. In most cases, the people in
charge of these organizations are senior to the emergency manager, have direct
line authority from the senior official, or are autonomous. Each stakeholder
brings to the planning process their own authorities, legal mandates, culture
and operating missions. The principle of coordination requires that the
emergency manager, or other actors responsible for risk management and
increasing resilience, gain agreement among these disparate agencies as to a
common purpose, and then ensure that their independent activities help to
achieve this common purpose.
Note: Information on NFPA 1600 is available at
http://www.nfpa.org/newsReleaseDetails.asp?categoryid=488&itemId=46745&cookie%5Ftest=1;
EMAP information is available at http://www.emaponline.org/.
OCR for page 32
32 DISASTER RESILIENCE: A NATIONAL IMPERATIVE
Foundation for Risk Management
Two elements provide the foundation for managing risks: identifying
the hazards that affect the community and assessing the risks that such hazards
pose (see Figure 2.2). Both are based on scientific information. Because these
two steps provide the cornerstone for risk management, we provide more detail
on the current methods for hazard identification and disaster risk assessment.
Hazard Identification
As noted earlier, hazard identification determines the types and
characteristics of potential disasters facing a community or region (Box 2.4). For
example, earthquake hazard is a combination of the likelihood of earthquake
occurrence (location, magnitude, and recurrence rate of all future damaging
earthquakes impacting a region) and ground motion predictions that are used to
calculate the spatial distribution of shaking intensity for these future events. In a
similar way, a hurricane hazard can be described by the spatial distribution of its
projected path and wind speed and central pressure along that path. Assessing
the likelihood of earthquake- and weather-related events typically is based on
analysis of - both the historical and geological record of events, knowledge of
the physical processes leading to the occurrence of a disaster, and real-time data
collection and monitoring of natural (geological, atmospheric, oceanic)
phenomena. Although historical records are important, limits exist on the extent
to which generalizations can be made about how physical phenomena will
evolve in the future. For example, expected changes in climate bring into
question how to interpret historical data in characterizing the intensity and
magnitude of future hurricanes and floods (Milly et al., 2008), and may increase
the costs and losses associated with severe storms and extreme events in the
years to come (Karl et al., 2009; NRC, 2011a; IPCC 2012).
BOX 2.4
Cedar Rapids, Iowa: Hazard Identification
In May and early June 2008, tornadoes and floods struck Iowa. The
largest single tornado in the state in a 30-year period, an EF-5,a struck the town
of Parkersburg, Iowa, 85 miles northwest of Cedar Rapids on May 25 and
caused millions of dollars in damage, eight deaths, and the mobilization of
significant state and local emergency response resources.
In early June, as the effects of the tornadoes were still being evaluated
and absorbed, the residents and decision makers of Cedar Rapids were
monitoring information about the potential for major flooding of the Cedar
River which passes through the city center. The water levels in the Cedar and
nearby Iowa Rivers and their tributaries had risen throughout the spring because
the agricultural land that covers 74 percent of the state, still saturated from the
OCR for page 33
THE FOUNDATION FOR BUILDING A RESILIENT NATION 33
heavy winter snowmelt and without crop cover, together with an extensive
network of subsurface clay drainage tile systems, contributed extensive runoff
into the rivers. The high river levels were exacerbated by heavier-than-average
precipitation during the spring (Bradley, 2010; Krajewski and Mantilla, 2010).
Having endured record floods in 1993 when the Cedar River crested in Cedar
Rapids at 22.5 feet (the river's flood stage is 12 feet), most citizens, officials,
emergency personnel, businesses, and museums held some expectation that they
would not risk another "100-year flood" in 2008. When the Cedar River
eventually crested (see Figure 2.1) at more than 31 feet, it was well above what
would characterize a "500-year" flood event.b
Hazard identification is more than just historical experience with
hazard events; it includes the identification of potential sources of disaster to the
community and the likelihood and expected impacts of future events. Cedar
Rapids has multiple sources of natural hazards: floods, severe weather
(thunderstorms and hail; severe winter weather), tornadoes and severe wind
storms, and heat waves. Cedar Rapids (Linn County) is also located 9 miles
downstream from the Duane Arnold Energy Center, a commercial nuclear
power facility, and is within the emergency planning zone for that facility,
adding a direct human-made hazard to the area.
The city and county have a risk mitigation strategy in place for the
nuclear power facility: the city's emergency planners, hospital personnel, and
citizens drill four times a year along established evacuation routes. These drills,
including the relocation of essential medical facilities and personnel proved
essential during the response to the flooding of the Cedar River into the city in
the second week of June 2008. According to the health personnel and
emergency responders with whom the committee spoke in their visit to Cedar
Rapids, the preparation and planning involved in preparing for that single,
human-induced hazard played a large role in the fact that no lives were lost to a
different hazard that evolved into a disaster during the flooding in 2008.
a
"EF" equates to the Enhanced Fujita scale, which is a tornado rating based on estimated wind
speeds and damage. The scale ranges from EF-0 to EF-5. At EF-5, wind speeds are estimated to
exceed 200 mph for 3-second gusts (http://www.crh.noaa.gov/arx/efscale.php).
b
The 100-year floodplain is the boundary of the flood that has a 1 percent chance of being equaled
or exceeded in any given year; the 500-year floodplain has a 0.2 percent chance of being equaled or
exceeded in any given year.
Sources: Panelists in the committee's field trip and workshop in Cedar Rapids and Iowa City (see
Appendix B for list of panelists); www.linncounty-ema.org;
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/Image/dmx/Iowa%20Tornado%20Statistics%201980-2008%20Graph.pdf.
Data and characterization of weather-related events and other natural
hazards such as earthquakes, floods, or wildfires are made by federal agencies
such as the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), and U.S. Forest Service, each of which has
OCR for page 34
34 DISASTER RESILIENCE: A NATIONAL IMPERATIVE
responsibility for collecting data and monitoring these phenomena (see Chapter
6 for more detailed description of these federal roles and Appendix C for some
of the kinds of data that these agencies collect and monitoring that they
conduct). Much of this information is provided to communities in data tables or
in the form of maps.
One example of a quantitative hazard assessment for a specific hazard
is well illustrated by the USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project,
recognized both nationally and internationally as the authoritative analysis of
earthquake hazard in the United States. The USGS process includes solicitation
of input parameters from regional experts, a logic-tree approach to capture the
range of scientific uncertainty in input parameters, transparency regarding all
input data and methodology, and online accessibility to a wide array of digital
hazard maps and derivative products.3 One of the major strengths of the USGS
Seismic Hazard Maps is that they are probabilistic; that is, they provide
estimates of ground-shaking levels at different return periods for the full array of
potential future earthquakes and take into account each earthquake's rate of
occurrence.
Many communities address their potential hazards in a qualitative way,
such as by defining high-, moderate-, and low-hazard zones, or through
scenarios of likely or worst-case events, but only a probabilistic hazard
assessment quantitatively captures potential events and their impacts together
with their likelihood of occurrence. Probabilistic hazard assessment draws from
historical data but also from longer-term records of past events from the
geological record. The USGS's probabilistic hazard is used to develop outputs
of earthquake ground motion for designing buildings and structures that accord,
for example, with the 2012 International Building Code.4 For example, most
building codes in the United States are based on the USGS's estimate of the
ground motion level with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. This
corresponds to ground motions with a 475-year return period, or the highest
shaking level expected from any nearby earthquake source that is likely to occur
over the next 475 years.5 Probabilistic hazard is also the input used in risk
assessment to compute probable losses at different return periods and is thus
used to determine insurance premiums for relatively low likelihood but high-
impact events.
The largest federal hazard mapping program is NFIP's flood insurance
rate maps, produced for the community level. These maps identify areas subject
to flooding from events of varying intensity based on elevation, channel
morphology and streamflow, and watershed conditions. Elevation data are
based on topographic features using digital elevation models. The flood risk
information is based on hydrological and hydraulic analyses, historical data, and
3
See http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/.
4
https://geohazards.usgs.gov/secure/designmaps/us/.
5
See USGS FAQs: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?faqID=223.
OCR for page 35
THE FOUNDATION FOR BUILDING A RESILIENT NATION 35
watershed characteristics as they affect runoff. Although the flood mapping
process and inputs are well known, actually making accurate flood maps and
maintaining the information are complex (NRC, 2009). Limitations in our
understanding of floodplain boundaries, needed improvements in predictive and
probabilistic flood models (riverine and storm surge), and enhanced topographic
accuracy (NRC, 2007a, 2009) render the timely production of flood maps a
costly but essential proposition for communities and the federal government
(Box 2.5).
BOX 2.5
A College Campus Benefits from Flood Maps After Hurricane Irene (2011)
The Russell Sage College Campus in Troy, New York, sits within two
blocks of the Hudson River, north of Albany. On August 28, Hurricane Irene
had passed through the area. Although Monday, August 29 was clear and sunny,
the Hudson River was rising. The disaster management team at the college used
FEMA flood maps to estimate the risk of campus flooding, which would
necessitate the evacuation of all personnel and students who had just arrived to
begin the fall semester. Although the start of the academic year had to be
delayed, the river stopped rising just below the level at which the campus would
have flooded. Only the basements of two low-lying buildings were affected.
The flood maps were essential in preventing an unnecessary evacuation.
In some states, the federal and state agencies work together to develop
authoritative zoning maps to identify areas subject to multiple levels of hazards
for a variety of perils such as landslides, liquefaction, and surface fault rupture.
Also, new technologies are making possible increasingly higher resolution and
more sophisticated and detailed hazard identification maps such as the
characterization and monitoring of wildfire activity (Figure 2.3).
OCR for page 56
Risk mapping FEMA, USACE, Weeks to several Communication of the hazard Overreliance on accuracy
NOAA, NASA, years depending upon risk to the community of maps
USFS, USGS in quality and
conjunction with availability of data
state and local and map area covered
authorities;
engineering firms
Zoning Local and state Immediate Prohibits building or rebuilding May prevent lucrative
ordinances governments in hazard-prone locations construction of homes or
businesses in specific
areas
Hazard and Private sector; Immediate if adopted Allows buyers to identify May hinder sales or lower
vulnerability federal, state, and freely by the private potential hazards or property values in areas
disclosure local governments sector; several years construction known to be where hazards are
or more if new vulnerable to such hazards revealed or for vulnerable
legislation is required before the purchase of a home construction types
to implement or business; increases the value
of disaster-resistant buildings
Economic and Federal, state, and May be quickly Subsidies, grants, fines, or tax Negative incentives
tax incentives local governments adopted and rebates can provide incentives (fines, penalties) may not
implemented if to homeowners and businesses be acceptable to residents
political will, to install hazard mitigation or businesses; positive
competing demands measures incentives (subsidies,
for resources, and grants, rebates) incur
public acceptance immediate costs to the
align; realization of government with delayed
returns on investment return on investment
OCR for page 57
may be months to
many years
Hazard NOAA, USGS, Constant data Allows forecasts of potential Complex disasters and
forecasting USACE, NASA, collection and events and their impacts to be natural systems,
and warning USFS, state monitoring made; when communicated in a increasing population, and
systems agencies, private timely way, warning systems potential longer-term
sector can save lives impacts require increased
data precision and better
forecasting models
Insurance FEMA, state Policies currently are Risk-based pricing that Continued public
insurance issued on an annual communicates level of risk to financial assistance to
commissioners, basis but some people in hazard-prone areas; those who do not buy
private insurance consideration is being vouchers for lower-income insurance
industry, banks given to multiyear owners
insurance tied to the
property
Catastrophe Insurers, banks, Typically 1 to 3 years Risk is transferred to a broad Investors lose invested
bonds investors investor base in the event of a funds if a catastrophic
catastrophic event; allows event occurs; insurers pay
access to large fund amounts bond amount with interest
fairly quickly if the event does not occur
Note: FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency, NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NIST = National Institute of Standards and
Technology, NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USFS = U.S. Forest Service, and USGS = U.S.
Geological Survey.
OCR for page 58
58 DISASTER RESILIENCE: A NATIONAL IMPERATIVE
IMPROVING RESILIENCE THROUGH RISK MANAGEMENT
Several themes emerge from disaster risk management, which provide
a foundation for increasing the resilience of communities to hazard and disaster
risks (Sayers et al., 2012):
1. Risk cannot be eliminated completely, so some residual risk will
continue to exist and require management actions. The impacts of past
natural disasters, particularly recent ones, are not necessarily a key to the future
for several reasons. Society and its support systems have become increasingly
interdependent (Chapter 1). In addition, human activity and development have
destroyed much of nature's defenses against natural hazards. This fact, coupled
with likely changes in the physical environment due to climate change, suggests
that future hazard probability and exposure will rise if no actions are taken.
Historic records are short in a geological time frame, and the possibility exists
for more severe floods, earthquakes, or other disasters.
2. The nature of risk perceptions and behavioral biases are
important to consider in developing risk management strategies. The
public and decision makers often underestimate the likelihood of a disaster
occurring and hence do not undertake risk-reducing measures beforehand.
Short-term strategies may also dominate when deciding what action to take.
These behavioral features need to be considered when determining what types of
risk management strategies are likely to increase resilience to disasters.
3. A diverse portfolio of disaster risk management measures
provides options for decision makers and communities before, during, and
after disasters. Such a portfolio can aid in efficient use of resources and
more effective risk management. A portfolio with diverse risk management
measures provides multiple options for enhancing resilience to a community in
case one of the measures should fail. Combining well-enforced building codes
and insurance with structural reinforcements or other measures can take on
special significance to protect the community or region against physical and
financial losses should structural measures (e.g., dams and levees, natural
defenses) fail to provide full protection against the hazard. A key balance is that
between investment in resources for managing disaster and the likelihood and
magnitude of the hazards.
4. The need for science-based objective hazard identification and
risk assessments is a critical input into the risk management process. Such
input should be easily communicated to the community, with information and
data that are transparent and not cloaked in an unpublished model, with all
details proprietary. The sole reliance on anecdotal information, past experience,
or deterministic scenarios does not provide an adequate or rigorous foundation
for determining disaster risk.
OCR for page 59
THE FOUNDATION FOR BUILDING A RESILIENT NATION 59
5. Reflecting risk in insurance premiums while keeping insurance
acquisition affordable to those requiring special treatment can encourage
more individuals to purchase insurance policies. When insurance premiums
are based on risk they provide signals about the hazards individuals face and can
encourage them to adopt cost-effective mitigation measures to decrease their
vulnerability to future disaster losses. General public funding, as opposed to
insurance premium subsidies, can provide insurance for homeowners currently
residing in hazard-prone areas and who may be socially vulnerable but are
uninsured or inadequately insured.
6. Communicating risk in ways that are understandable to the
public is a critical aspect of the risk management process. Decision makers
and the public require accurate information on the risks they face. Risk maps,
framing of information, social networking, and educational processes can be
employed to communicate information on the risk and on mitigation measures
(Sayers et al., 2012; this topic is addressed in detail in Chapter 5).
KNOWLEDGE AND DATA NEEDS
To achieve resilience the federal government has a dominant leadership
role in supporting research to improve forecasting, impact-modeling capabilities,
as well as the efficacy of risk-reduction strategies for the physical, public health,
ecological, and socioeconomic aspects of natural and human-made disasters.
Over the last several decades, significant investment by federal and state
agencies in both land-based and space-based monitoring and observation
networks for natural hazards has greatly increased our ability to forecast the
likelihood and characteristics (e.g., magnitude, path) of future event occurrence
as well as the intensity of the physical impacts of natural hazard events (e.g.,
ground-shaking level, wind speed, inundation depth). These data networks
provide a quantitative basis for accurate, real-time meteorological forecasting, as
well as early warning of flooding and tsunamis. In addition, these hazard
monitoring networks provide a multidecadal baseline to help evaluate natural
variability as well as the impacts of climate change.
The digital technological revolution made hazard monitoring network
data available in real time and, in some cases, permitted rapid computer-
automated, preliminary data analysis. The nation relies on a number of essential
land-based and space-based hazard monitoring networks for short-term
forecasting and early warning, as well as for understanding the physical
processes leading to natural disasters and their physical impacts. Both the
sensors and the communication networks supporting them require continual
maintenance as well as upgrades to take full advantage of technological
advances in sensor capabilities and communications. However, resource
limitations have prevented many federally run monitoring networks from taking
full advantage of the technological advances. The key federal hazard monitoring
OCR for page 60
60 DISASTER RESILIENCE: A NATIONAL IMPERATIVE
networks (along with the relevant reviews which include recommendations) are
illustrated in Appendix C. Nearly all these networks have been the subject of
outside reviews with consistent recommendations for upgrades. While it is
beyond the scope of this report to repeat all the recommendations related to
hazard monitoring in each of the NRC reports listed in Appendix C, we extend
our strongest support for continued and adequate upgrading, expansion of
coverage, maintenance, and staffing of the key hazard monitoring networks and
observation platforms as outlined above. These data are essential for
sustaining the forecasting and modeling capabilities required for national
resilience.
Achieving resilience involves monitoring impacts in all the systems and
the integration of data. While many hazard monitoring networks are in place,
comparable networks for monitoring changes in the human systems as they
affect vulnerability and resilience are lacking. Monitoring vulnerability and
resilience requires long-term systematic data collection to capture for place-
based human and environmental changes. A number of studies have advocated
establishing place-based observatory networks on community resilience and
vulnerability (Peacock et al., 2008; NRC, 2011c)--observatories that integrate
social sciences, natural sciences, and engineering data in monitoring progress
toward resilience.
Breakthroughs in hazard and risk assessment will come from better
constraints on the key parameters in the models that govern the systems
responsible for disaster impacts, such as the role of clouds in climate models, the
three-dimensional effects of basins on strong ground shaking in earthquakes,
and improved estimates of seasonal and diurnal changes in populations in
hazardous areas. Research is also needed on the role and function of natural
defenses against natural disasters (e.g., the capacity of coastal wetlands to help
absorb storm surge, the role of swamps along rivers for floodwater storage),
many of which have been severely compromised by actions of people. Until we
fully understand the full ecosystem functions and feedback loops of these
natural defenses, it is difficult to meaningfully evaluate whether it would be
more cost-effective to restore wetlands or swamps or simply build or continue to
raise and strengthen a system of levees downstream.
Research is also scant on the value of disaster mitigation and what
factors strongly reduce losses. Targeted research into new materials and new
processes for much more resilient construction of new buildings and
infrastructure is needed, as well as assessment models of the role of retrofit
standards to meet resiliency goals or effective strategies for addressing
infrastructure interdependencies, . From a social science perspective, more
research is required in modeling social capital within communities. Integration
of information and modeling the connections between threats, vulnerability,
exposure, sensitivity, and impacts also require more research, especially based
on differences in geographic scale or time periods.
One of the key themes in the report is that despite some level of
information about disaster risk, individuals, communities, businesses, and
OCR for page 61
THE FOUNDATION FOR BUILDING A RESILIENT NATION 61
political leaders may be reluctant to reduce risk to make the nation more
resilient. The question is why? To address that question more research into the
social and behavioral biases that affect the processing of risk information, how
risk data could be more effectively communicated, and how such risk
information translates into the adoption of resilience strategies could be helpful.
Research on the next generation of technologies for communicating and sharing
location-based risk information would also enhance resilience at all levels.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Understanding, managing, and reducing risk is an essential foundation
for increasing resilience to hazards and disasters. Risk management is a
continuous process, and the choice of strategies requires regular reevaluation in
the context of new data, models, and changes in the socioeconomic and
demographic characteristics, and environmental setting of a community. The
risk management strategy that works best for a community is based on the
available information, how it is communicated to the key interested parties, and
the perception of risks and rewards for avoiding or mitigating risk.
A variety of tools exists to manage disaster risk. These tools include
structural (construction-related) measures such as levees, dams, disaster-
resistant construction, and well-enforced building codes, and nonstructural
(nonconstruction-related) measures such as natural defenses, insurance, zoning
ordinances, and economic incentives. Structural and nonstructural measures are
complementary and can be used in conjunction with one another. Risk
management is at its foundation a community decision--including not only the
immediately affected community, but also local, state, and federal levels of
government and the private sector--and the risk management approach and will
only be as effective if there is commitment to use risk management tools and
measures.
Recommendation: The public and private sectors in a community should
work cooperatively to encourage commitment to and investment in a risk
management strategy that includes complementary structural and
nonstructural risk-reduction and risk-spreading measures or tools. The
portfolio of tools should seek equitable balance among the needs and
circumstances of individuals, businesses, and government, as well as the
community's economic, social, and environmental resources.
Examples from actual disasters and their aftermaths show that
implementation of risk management strategies involves a combination of actors
in local, state, and federal governments, NGOs, researchers, the private sector,
and individuals in the neighborhood community. Each actor will have different
roles and responsibilities in developing the risk management strategy and in
characterizing and implementing the measure or tool, whether structural or
nonstructural, to be added to the community's risk management portfolio.
OCR for page 62
62 DISASTER RESILIENCE: A NATIONAL IMPERATIVE
Some strategies can be implemented over the short term, while others may take
a longer time. Table 2.2 is a potential template for decision makers to consider
how to develop and implement risk management strategies and to manage
expectations. The roles and responsibilities of the different actors are described
in more detail in Chapters 5 and 6.
One underutilized tool is investment in risk reduction through insurance
and other financial instruments to enhance resilience. Such measures can
improve mitigation of properties and infrastructure, but more importantly, can
encourage the relocation of residences, businesses, and infrastructure through
more risk-based pricing.
Recommendation: The public and private sectors should encourage
investment in risk-based pricing of insurance in which insurance premiums
are designed to include multiyear policies tied to the property, with
premiums reflecting risk. Such risk-based pricing reduces the need for public
subsidies of disaster insurance. Risk-based pricing can serve as an incentive that
clearly communicates to those in hazard-prone areas the different levels of risk
that they face. Use of risk-based pricing could also reward mitigation through
premium reductions and can apply to both privately and publicly funded
insurance programs.
OCR for page 63
THE FOUNDATION FOR BUILDING A RESILIENT NATION 63
REFERENCES
Bachman, R. E. 2004. The ATC 58 project plan for nonstructural components In Proceedings of the
International Workshop on Performance-Based Seismic Design, Concepts and
Implementation, June 28-July 1, 2004, Bled, Slovenia, P. Fafjar, ed. Richmond, CA:
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
Bradley, A. A., Jr. 2010. What causes floods in Iowa? In A Watershed Year: Anatomy of the Iowa
Floods of 2008, C. F. Mutel (ed.). Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, pp. 7-18.
Brinkley, D. 2006. The Great Deluge: Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, and the Mississippi Gulf
Coast. New York: Harper Collins.
Burby, R. J. 2006. Hurricane Katrina and the paradoxes of government disaster policy: Bringing
about wise governmental decisions for hazardous areas. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 604:171-191.
Camerer, C., and H. Kunreuther. 1989. Decision processes for low probability events: Policy
implications. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 8:565-592.
Cornell, C. A. 1968. Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America 58:15831606.
Cutter, S. L., ed. 2001. American Hazardscapes: The Regionalization of Hazards and Disasters.
Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
Cutter, S. L., B. J. Boruff, and W. L. Shirley. 2003. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards.
Social Science Quarterly 84 (1):242-261.
Cutter, S. L., L. Barnes, M. Berry, C. Burton, E. Evans, E. Tate, and J. Webb. 2008. A place-based
model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global
Environmental Change 18(4):598-606.
Cutter, S., B. Osman-Elasha, J. Campbell, S.-M. Cheong, S. McCormick, R. Pulwarty, S. Supratid,
and G. Ziervogel. 2012. Managing the risks from climate extremes at the local level. In
Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change
Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, C. B. Field, V. Barros, T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, D. J. Dokken, K. L.
Ebi, M. D. Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S. K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P. M.
Midgley, eds. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 291-338.
Elnashai, A. S., V. Papanikolaou, and D. Lee. 2009. ZEUS-NL--A system for inelastic analysis of
structures. Mid-America Earthquake Center, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL.
http://mae.cee.uiuc.edu/news/zeusnl.html .
Emrich, C. T., S. L. Cutter, and P. J. Weschler. 2011. GIS and emergency management. In The
SAGE Handbook of GIS and Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 321-343.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1998. Retrofitting: Six Ways to Prevent Your
Home from Flooding. Washington, DC: FEMA.
Galloway, G., G. Baecher, D. Plasencia, K. Coulton, J. Louthain, and M. Bagha. 2006. Assessing
the Adequacy of the National Flood Insurance Program's 1 Percent Flood Standard.
Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Galloway, G. E, D. F. Boesch, and R. R. Twilley. 2009. Restoring and protecting coastal Louisiana.
Issues in Science and Technology 25:2:29-38.
Grossi, P., and H. Kunreuther. 2005. Catastrophe Modeling: A New Approach to Managing Risk.
New York: Springer.
Heinz Center. 2000. The Hidden Costs of Coastal Hazards. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Huber, O., R. Wider, and O. Huber. 1997. Active information search and complete information
presentation in naturalistic risky decision tasks. Acta Psychologica 95:15-29.
IAEM (International Association of Emergency Managers). 2007. Principles of Emergency
Management Monograph (Supplement). Available at
https://www.iaem.com/EMPrinciples/index.htm.
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank. 2010. Natural Hazards.
UnNatural Disastes: The Economics of Effective Prevention. Washington, DC: World
Bank.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events
and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, C. B. Field, V. Barros, T. F.
OCR for page 64
64 DISASTER RESILIENCE: A NATIONAL IMPERATIVE
Stocker, D. Qin, D. J. Dokken, K. L. Ebi, M. D. Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner,
S. K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P. M. Midgley, eds. Cambridge, UK and New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 2000. Choices, Values and Frames. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Karl, T. R., J. M. Melillo, and T. C. Peterson. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United
States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Keeney, R. 1992. Value Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
King, R. O. 2011. National Flood Insurance Program: Background, Challenges, and Financial
Status. Congressional Research Service. Available at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40650.pdf.
Krajewski, W. F., and R. Mantilla. 2010. Why were the 2008 floods so large? In A Watershed Year:
Anatomy of the Iowa Floods of 2008. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, pp. 19-30.
Kunreuther, H. 1996. Mitigating disaster losses through insurance, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
12:171-187.
Kunreuther, H., and E. Michel-Kerjan. 2011. At War with the Weather: Managing Large-Scale Risks
in a New Era of Catastrophes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (paperback ed.).
Kunreuther, H., and R. Roth, Sr., eds. 1998. Paying the Price: The Status and Role of Insurance
Against Natural Disasters in the United States. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
Kunreuther, H., N. Novemsky, and D. Kahneman. 2001. Making low probabilities useful. Journal of
Risk and Uncertainty 23:103-120.
Kunreuther, H., R. Meyer, and E. Michel-Kerjan. 2012. Overcoming decision biases to reduce losses
from natural catastrophes. In Behavioral Foundations of Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Kunreuther, H., M. Pauly, and S. McMorrow. In press. Insurance and Behavioral Economics:
Improving Decisions in the Most Misunderstood Industry. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Mahdyiar, M., and B. Porter. 2005. The risk assessment process: The role of catastrophe modeling
in dealing with natural hazards. In Catastrophe Modeling: A New Approach to Managing
Risk. New York: Springer, pp. 45-68.
Magat, W., K. W. Viscusi, and J. Huber. 1987. Risk-dollar tradeoffs, risk perceptions, and consumer
behavior. In Learning About Risk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 83-97.
Michel-Kerjan, E., and H. Kunreuther. 2011. Redesigning flood insurance. Science 333(6041):408-
409.
Milly, P. C. D., J. Betancourt, M. Falkenmark, R. M. Hirsch, Z. W. Kundzewicz, D. P. Lettenmaier,
and R. J. Stouffer. 2008. Stationarity is dead--Whither water management? Science
319:573-574.
NRC (National Research Council). 2006a. Completing the Forecast: Characterizing and
Communicating Uncertainty for Better Decisions Using Weather and Climate Forecasts.
Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2006b. Facing Hazards and Disasters: Understanding Human Dimension. Washington DC:
The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2007a. Elevation Data for Floodplain Mapping. Washington DC: The National Academies
Press.
NRC. 2007b. Successful Response Starts with a Map: Improving Geospatial Support for Disaster
Management. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2009. Mapping the Zone: Improving Flood Map Accuracy. Washington DC: The National
Academies Press.
NRC. 2010. Risk in DHS: Review of the Department of Homeland Security's Approach to Risk
Analysis. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2011a. America's Climate Choices. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2011b. Increasing National Resilience to Hazards and Disasters: The Perspective from the
Gulf Coast of Louisiana and Mississippi, Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
OCR for page 65
THE FOUNDATION FOR BUILDING A RESILIENT NATION 65
NRC. 2011c. National Earthquake Resilience: Research, Implementation, and Outreach.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2012. Dam and Levee Safety and Community Resilience: A Vision for Future Practice.
Washignton, DC: The National Academies Press.
Opperman, J. J., G. E. Galloway, J. Fargione, J. F. Mount, B. D. Richter, and S. Secchi. 2009.
Sustainable floodplains through large-scale reconnection to rivers. Science. 326:1487-
1488.
Peacock, W. G., H. Kunreuther, W. H. Hooke, S. L. Cutter, S. E. Change, and P. R. Berke. 2008.
Toward a Resiliency and Vulnerability Observatory Network: RAVON. Final Report.
Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center, Texas A&M University. Available at
http://www.nehrp.gov/pdf/RAVON.pdf.
Peduzzi, P., H. Dao, C. Herold, and F. Mouton. 2009. Assessing global exposure and vulnerability
to hazards: The Disaster Risk Index. Natural Hazards Earth System Science 9:1149-
1159.
Rose, A. 2009. Economic Resilience to Disasters: CARRI Research Report 8. Community and
Regional Resilience Initiative, Oak Ridge, TN. Available at
http://www.resilientus.org/library/Research_Report_8_Rose_1258138606.pdf.
Samuelson, W., and R. Zeckhauser. 1988. Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty 1:7-59.
Sayers, P., G. Galloway, E. Penning-Rowsell, F. Shen, K. Wang, Y. Chen, and T. Le Quesne. 2012.
Flood Risk Management: A Strategic Approach--Consultation Draft. UNESCO on
behalf of WWF-UK/China and the General Institute of Water Design and Planning,
China.
Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236:280-285.
Slovic, P. 2000. The Perception of Risk. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1978. Accident probabilities and seat belt usage: A
psychological perspective. Accident Analysis and Prevention 10:281-285.
Tobin, G. A. 1995. The levee love affair: A stormy relationship? Water Resources Bulletin
31(3):359-367.
UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction Secretariat). 2007. Hyogo
Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities
to Disasters. Geneva, Switzerland: UN/ISDR. Available at
http://www.unisdr.org/files/1037_hyogoframeworkforactionenglish.pdf
OCR for page 66
