National Academies Press: OpenBook

Guide for Emergency Transportation Operations (2005)

Chapter: Appendix: The State of the Practice

« Previous: The Operations and Technology Self-Assessment and Guidance
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Appendix: The State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Guide for Emergency Transportation Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13857.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Appendix: The State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Guide for Emergency Transportation Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13857.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Appendix: The State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Guide for Emergency Transportation Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13857.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Appendix: The State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Guide for Emergency Transportation Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13857.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Appendix: The State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Guide for Emergency Transportation Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13857.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Appendix: The State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Guide for Emergency Transportation Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13857.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Appendix: The State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Guide for Emergency Transportation Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13857.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Appendix: The State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Guide for Emergency Transportation Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13857.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Appendix: The State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Guide for Emergency Transportation Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13857.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Appendix: The State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Guide for Emergency Transportation Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13857.
×
Page 56

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.

APPENDIX: THE STATE OF THE PRACTICE OPERATIONS—STATE OF THE PRACTICE The actual field activities in response to incidents or other emergencies take place within traditional frameworks designed for generic incidents and emergencies. Emergency response, general incident management, and TIM all have their own conventions con- sisting of agency roles, accepted procedures, headquarters functions, and ad hoc reac- tions by field personnel. Emergency Management Conventions The conventions of the transportation aspects of emergency management grow out of the function of state and regional emergency management agencies (EMAs) pursuant to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and DHS guidelines. Principal fea- tures include the following: • Leadership by local and state EMAs. In major non-highway emergencies with highway implications (such as evacuation), the EMAs call on law enforcement, fire service, medical service, health/human services, and DOTs for specific emer- gency support functions (ESFs), sometimes using pre-developed response strate- gies. When the size of the emergency reaches a certain level, the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) for the area encompassing the emergency is activated. A state or federal EOC may also be activated for major emergencies or terrorist attacks. • An organization of process around generic protocols for three defined phases: preparation, response, and recovery. Responsibilities and communications are pre-identified for each stage. The emphasis on phase depends on the type of emer- gency, usually characterized by scope, location, type of facility, and severity. • An “all-hazards” approach assuming tactics that have been developed for gen- eral emergencies are used as the basis for each presumed unique event. • Recovery speed as a secondary focus with emphasis placed on thorough inves- tigation and documentation. Terrorism Annexes Since September 11, 2001, many states have updated their state and regional emergency management plans to add a terrorism annex specifying explicit authorities, responsibil- ities, contacts, and protocols in the event of elevated threat warnings or response to a ter- rorism event. These annexes follow general emergency management protocols. The DHS HSAS for terrorist threat levels and the NIMS for command and control provide addi- tional structures to be built into all-hazard ETO. General Incident Management Conventions and the National Incident Management System Generic incident management has been the standard process employed by the authorized agency that has incident command (fire service and/or law enforcement). Supporting roles were previously established by convention for other services such as emergency 47 G U I D E F O R E M E R G E N C Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N O P E R A T I O N S

medical services and transportation. Manuals and procedures of national fire, police, insur- ance, and standards organizations delineate various aspects of a generic incident manage- ment process facilitated by formal Incident Command Systems (ICS) to ensure that key responsibilities are executed and understood. Under 2003 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5, DHS has developed the National Incident Management System. NIMS sets forth a series of principles that agencies must adopt in incident management with respect to emergency prevention, preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. Consistency with this system will be a condition for certain classes of federal aid to state and local governments. The principles of NIMS are designed to be standardized but flexible and include • The use of incident or unified command; • Joint preparedness activities including planning, training, and personnel qualification; • Mechanisms for resource management; • Standard procedures and channels for communication and information sharing; • Standard, compatible, and interoperable technology; and • Continuous, performance-based improvement. TIM Activities occurring in the field in response to traffic incidents or other emergencies on the highway take place within conventions that have evolved from general incident man- agement. By law, policy, or tradition, incident command has rested with law enforce- ment or fire service entities, with DOTs in a support role. Over the last few years, changes in the National Fire Protection Association Guidelines and the development of NIMS have called for better use of unified command procedures for multi-agency responses. Most state DOTs have a basic incident management response program for traffic con- trol and alternate routing, either for major incidents or upon request to support the pub- lic safety community. TIM procedures in the field are developed by each agency and are sometimes referenced in national publications developed by agencies or organizations such as FHWA, the USDOT, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA), and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). These conventions generally reflect • Established roles and procedures for police, fire and rescue, emergency services, state DOTs, and towing and recovery organizations within an incident or unified command framework. • Introduction of the concept of specific steps in the TIM process, including detect and verify, mobilize and respond, secure the scene, manage traffic, document, and restore and recover. 48 G U I D E F O R E M E R G E N C Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N O P E R A T I O N S

• State DOTs offering regular TIM support within rush hours but not the same level of support during other hours, even though it is common for the most severe incidents to occur late at night or in the early morning. • Coordination of field and DOT TMC/dispatch activities between DOTs and law enforcement (detection, response, investigation, motorist information, site man- agement, clearance, recovery). A revision to the MUTCD (Chapter 6.I) sets forth concepts for temporary traffic con- trol in an incident context. However, these conventions are not yet well integrated into practice. OPERATIONS—STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Excerpts of the FHWA “Traffic Incident Management Self-Assessment National Report” indicate that the majority of regions surveyed are making progress in some of the oper- ations areas of TIM but that progress is uneven. Key strengths and weaknesses are dis- cussed below in Table 21, combining selected survey results with indications from inter- views used in this guide. 49 G U I D E F O R E M E R G E N C Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N O P E R A T I O N S Table 21. Example Operational Strengths and Weaknesses from the FHWA TIM Self-Assessment Operational Strengths Improvements in ETO—as evidenced in TIM practices—have been modest and tenta- tive, typically driven by middle-management champions in state DOTs and their public safety counterparts. There has been some focus on the part of various stakeholders on the need to improve processes—for example, a study released over ten years ago by American Trucking Associations and the formation of the NTIMC. Increased attention to TIM within FHWA has produced case studies, a self-assessment, updates to a TIM handbook, and National Highway Institute TIM training material. Percent with ìStron g Efforts or Better” Strengths Have specific policies and procedures for hazardous materials response? 69 Have a pre-identified contact list for incident clearance and HAZMAT resources/equipment? 66 Use motorist assist service patrols? 70 Utilize the Incident Command System? 54 Have specific policies and procedures for fatal accident investigation? 51 Weaknesses Utilize traffic control procedures for the end of the incident traffic queue? 14 Have established criteria for what is a “major incident” – incident levels or codes? 17 Utilize on-scene traffic control procedures for levels of incidents in compliance with MUTCD? 29 Have quick clearance policies? 36 Train all responders in traffic control procedures? 30

Within the public safety community, the Incident Management Model Procedures Guide for Highway Incidents, published by the National Fire Service Incident Management System Consortium and USDOT, focuses on a range of traffic incident command set- tings. The Towing and Recovery Association of America also has developed guidance material. The increased attention to disaster management—especially for hurricanes—and to post-9/11 security has also brought more formal attention to the potential role of high- way ETO. In a small number of regions there has been more formal protocol develop- ment, joint DOT/public safety training in ICS and incident management, and some focus on improved technology. In addition, workshops by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials and FHWA have looked at state DOT roles regarding terrorist events. Homeland security exercises such as the Top Officials (TOPOFF) exer- cise series included a formal role for transportation agencies. Operational Weaknesses There is wide variation in the state of the practice in ETO. This variation is due more to a lack of focus and commitment than to local context differences. There is no formally recognized and documented best “state of the practice.” As suggested by Table 21, some of the transportation-oriented operational issues have not yet been widely addressed. The efficiency of an all-hazard approach calls attention to the differing characteristics and dynamics of various incidents and emergencies. These include the varying time scales, pace of incident development, and incident persistence. Still, the special operational needs associated with the range of incidents and emergencies have not been approached on a coordinated basis. Highway-related emergency management procedures related to HAZMAT, WMD, and major disasters have not been well-integrated into the incident management process in most states. There may be differing priorities at the scene of an emergency. Incidents and emergen- cies are not perceived in state DOTs and public safety agencies in the same way regard- ing their traffic service implications. The use of ICS is appropriate for field tailoring to unique events with minimal external impacts. This flexibility sometimes diverts focus from substantial opportunities to carry out life safety, law enforcement, and property preservation activities while at the same time accommodating key transportation needs. From a transportation point of view, major improvements in safety and efficiency have been demonstrated through developing and integrating comprehensive approaches based on coordinated and prepared operational regimes, rapid provision of emergency response, and speedy recovery of service. However, highway-related protocols and procedures employed locally for ETO vary widely nationwide. For example, quick clearance policy is in force in only a handful of areas, MUTCD-compliant traffic control is not widely used, traffic control training for responders is modest, and proper staging and emergency lighting are not widely employed. A major concern is the lack of training to formalize an approach designed to reducing the number and severity of secondary crashes. Although there has been an increasing level of training in incident command (among most public safety agencies and some DOTs) and in TIM among DOTs, the field of ETO has not yet been professionalized as part of basic training curriculums and agency poli- cies. State DOTs are not yet consistently committed to incident management in terms of 50 G U I D E F O R E M E R G E N C Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N O P E R A T I O N S

maintaining traffic service performance, reflected in the reluctance to adopt a 24 × 7 ser- vice provider regime. In contrast to other areas of emergency services (fire and rescue), the concept of perfor- mance standards for clearance of incidents is not yet widely accepted. Traffic incident clearance and other traffic-related emergency functions are rarely tracked or bench- marked against best practice or prior performance. There is wide variation in practice, as measured by safety or delay, and a substantial gap exists between best practices and the general state of the practice. With traffic incidents now being defined as temporary work zones for traffic control purposes, DOTs will have to evaluate how they will deliver traffic control services to support other responders at major traffic incidents during non- business hours. TECHNOLOGY—STATE OF THE PRACTICE At present, the applications of technology to ETO are limited and based principally on standard ITS surveillance, detection, and communications systems. These systems are operated from state DOT TMCs and public safety call and CAD centers. Some new technology related to real-time medical communications, interagency interoperability, and HAZMAT personnel protection is being applied. However, as indicated in the FHWA “Traffic Incident Management Self-Assessment National Report,” the FHWA ITS Deployment Tracking Program, and the interviews conducted in developing of this guide, the application of technologies, especially those related to communications and data development, is still in the early stages. TECHNOLOGY—STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Excerpts from the FHWA “Traffic Incident Management Self-Assessment National Report” indicate that the majority of regions surveyed is making progress in the some of the technology areas of TIM but that progress is very modest. Key strengths and weaknesses are discussed in Table 22, combining selected survey results with the indi- cations from interviews for this guide. 51 G U I D E F O R E M E R G E N C Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N O P E R A T I O N S

Technology Strengths Although each agency has its own internal communications network, with very limited interoperability with other agencies, developing interagency interoperable communica- tions is currently a popular public safety agenda item. Other technologies such as site investigation systems are sporadically being introduced. The potential of DOT surveil- lance and communications systems as part of a more comprehensive approach to inci- dent and emergency operations is only gradually being understood. As indicated in the 2003 FHWA “Traffic Incident Management Self-Assessment National Report,” some ITS technology has long been applied by state DOTs in most major met- ropolitan areas and, despite partial deployment, is being utilized for incident detection, verification, and public information. Approximately 80 metropolitan areas also have roving highway service patrols that play key roles as first responders and managers of many minor incidents. Technology Weaknesses The lack of interoperable voice and data communications and the problems created were starkly revealed by the events of September 11, 2001. The need for interoperable inter- agency communications is widely acknowledged but represents an expensive challenge in many regions. More generally, information-sharing protocols for each significantly different emergency type (weather, security, planned event) are not uniformly developed and often involve different units within responder agencies. Many metropolitan TMCs offer substantial capabilities in surveillance and communi- cations that are not widely appreciated or exploited by the general emergency manage- ment community. For example, TMC/CAD dispatch integration benefits may be obvi- ous, but few regions are yet moving in this area. DOT staff working in traffic centers are sometimes reluctant to call emergency response agencies to share information. Motorist information devices are available that could be utilized in a wide range of emergencies 52 G U I D E F O R E M E R G E N C Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N O P E R A T I O N S Table 22. Example Technology Strengths and Weaknesses from the FHWA TIM Self-Assessment Percent with “Strong Efforts or Better” Strengths Use TMC(s) to coordinate incident notification and response? 43 Developed technical infrastructure for surveillance and rapid detection of traffic incidents? 30 Weaknesses Have two-way interagency voice communications for direct on-site communications? 19 Provide data and video information transfer, e.g., TMC-CAD integration? 11 Have specific policies and procedures for traffic management during incident response? 21 Have a real-time motorist information system providing incident-specific information? 24

but are not yet effectively used from either timeliness or information perspectives. Amber Alerts have brought a large increase in public understanding of the capabilities of dynamic signs and have focused attention on how to make better use of these devices. An integrated approach to a broader range of hazards also introduces other technology issues. These involve the need for cooperation among the emergency management com- munity and public safety and transportation entities, more shared real-time information, and a need to develop access to special expertise on an on-call basis. INSTITUTIONS—STATE OF THE PRACTICE The FHWA “Traffic Incident Management Self-Assessment National Report” inter- views conducted in the development of this guide and the reference materials in the resources guide (NCHRP Web Document 73) indicate that “institutionalization” of ETO best practices is still in very early stages and that transportation and public safety enti- ties have different priorities. Public Safety Agencies Primary authority and commitment to both TIM and roadway-related emergency oper- ations lie with public safety agencies. By virtue of patrol responsibilities, traffic officers or highway patrol vehicles are likely to be the first on the scene in many other types of incidents in response to police dispatching. Even for major emergencies (such as hurri- canes) for which response is coordinated by state and local EMAs, either police or fire services have field command. However, who has command varies around the country by local law and tradition. State police may have state-level command structure, whereas fire services are often designated as the emergency incident command agency by local government. Overall, there is an enormous dedication to public safety (especially responder safety and property preservation) and secondarily to public convenience. Most law enforcement and fire and rescue services treat traffic incidents within a widely accepted framework of stan- dard all-hazard/all-incident procedure that is applied on an ad hoc, informal basis. EMAs State and local EMAs are in the key coordinating position under state law for major emergencies. They are responsible for planning and coordinating the key activities within the standard emergency management phases—preparation, response, and recovery. In each phase, state and local emergency responders each have designated ESF roles that are specified in the EMA’s plan. The ESF response roles are defined at a high level and coordination procedures are defined, but the field activities are left to normal incident command. The DOT’s roles are typically detailed in DOT emergency operations plans. In many state and regional Emergency Management Plans, the state DOT roles are focused principally on supplying equipment that may be useful in recovery, traffic management device supply, conditions assessment, repairing infrastructure, and coordination with law enforcement. State DOTs State DOTs exhibit a range of approaches to traffic incidents and highway-related emer- gencies. At the department policy level, there is a growing trend for DOTs to be proactive 53 G U I D E F O R E M E R G E N C Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N O P E R A T I O N S

regarding planned or anticipated highway “events” such as significant snow and ice, spe- cial events, and construction disruption where there is a clear public expectation of agency accountability. Emergency response, especially in areas subject to repeated major weather threats (hurricanes, flooding) or perceived as being vulnerable to terrorist threats, is gradually being formalized as a department-level concern. The role of DOTs in unanticipated problems varies substantially by state and region. In the case of TIM, key responsibilities are at the district level with the responsibilities divided among maintenance, traffic operations units, TMC management, and ITS proj- ect staff. To some degree, most state DOTs support the TIM and emergency operations activities of public safety agencies and EMAs. However, the extent and effectiveness of this involvement vary widely as do roles in detection, response, traffic control, and sys- tem restoration. Detection support is most typically provide via freeway service patrols of traffic operations staff who discover traffic incidents as part of their patrol activities or by monitoring of cameras. DOT responders are an important source of the mobilization process by virtue of direct face-to-face communications with responders and by their link to CAD and TMCs. DOT field presence at incidents is often a reflection of requests by public safety agencies in response to the need for major traffic control, as well as debris removal and facility repair, unless the DOT has a proactive TIM and motorist assist program. Operational levels vary by time of day without a clear relationship to severity of incidents or the dis- ruption they cause. Emergency operations plans, as part of formal emergency management programs, are handled as a function that supports the state or regional EMA. Formal state DOT plan- ning is largely limited to identification of contacts and chain of command, with actual response procedures left to ad hoc responses at the discretion of responsible units. Ice and snow removal as a form of incident management is a major exception to this reac- tive approach. It is apparent that, as suggested in Table 23, there is substantial overlap in objectives between transportation and public safety entities. Even among objectives where priorities mostly diverge, there appears to be considerable room for “simultaneous optimization.” INSTITUTIONS—STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Excerpts from the FHWA “Traffic Incident Management Self-Assessment National Report” indicate that the majority of regions surveyed are making progress at the level of regional program administration but that the programs are largely informal and unevaluated. 54 G U I D E F O R E M E R G E N C Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N O P E R A T I O N S

Institutional Strengths As indicated in the FHWA “Traffic Incident Management Self-Assessment National Report,” institutionalization of ETO is in its early stages. DOTs are forging better work- ing relationships among DOT and public safety personnel, but there is a long way to go in the establishment of formal programs within and among agencies. The emergency operations responsibilities of state DOTs have been given heightened visibility, especially since September 11, 2001; the 2003 blackout; and the natural dis- asters of the last decade. Most state DOTs have a responsible senior staff person at head- quarters and general communications and mobilization protocols for major emergencies. In addition, many states have developed more formal procedures for security-related procedural responses to elevated threat levels. Institutional Weaknesses The objectives, priorities, and management style exhibited by the key stakeholders (police, emergency medical services, fire and rescue, DOTs, and towing and recovery) are different, based in law, culture, and resources. The legal and regulatory environment also varies substantially by state. TIM is not treated as a formal, budgeted, managed program in most state DOTs. There is rarely a declared department policy on its responsibility or objectives regarding traffic incidents and little commitment to performance outcomes regarding management of inci- dents or other highway-related emergencies that disrupt traffic. Although congestion, traffic incidents, and emergencies are often cited in DOT policy, there is rarely a strate- gic plan with committed resources, clear lines of authority, or performance accountabil- ity. Rather, TIM is typically conducted as fragmented, part-time reactive activities under district management with responsibilities divided among maintenance, traffic operations units, TMC management, and ITS project staff. Key components (ITS, service patrols, communications) do not compete well for resources, and there is no clear professional cadre of related technical certification devoted to ETO. In contrast with this informal approach, the state DOT approach to snow and ice control suggests the potential of an organized institutionalized approach. 55 G U I D E F O R E M E R G E N C Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N O P E R A T I O N S Table 23. Example Institutional Strengths and Weaknesses from the FHWA TIM Self-Assessment Percent with “Strong Efforts or Better” Strengths Use TMC(s) to coordinate incident notification and response? 43 Developed technical infrastructure for surveillance and rapid detection of traffic incidents? 30 Weaknesses Have two-way interagency voice communications for direct on-site communications? 19 Provide data and video information transfer, e.g., TMC-CAD integration? 11 Have specific policies and procedures for traffic management during incident response? 21 Have a real-time motorist information system providing incident-specific information? 24

State DOT relationships with public safety agencies vary widely. The strongest relation- ships are in the field, where there is often a high degree of cooperation, informal commu- nication, and respect. However, formal inter-institutional relationships on an ongoing basis are the exception. DOTs are often perceived as public works agencies with a 9-to-5 com- mitment to operations rather than full-time partnership in systems management. Within the public safety community, traffic incidents and emergencies associated specif- ically with traffic often lack a separate program identity. In the case of fire service activi- ties, they also lack statewide consistency. Road-related incidents are often treated as a sub- variant of the general mission rather than as a separate activity with distinct procedures and resources. This is most characteristic of contexts in which incident command is under a fire service or law enforcement entity that is not dedicated to the highway setting. Nationwide, there are very few formal interagency agreements on policy, procedures, or performance tracking. Combined training and debriefing are almost non-existent. Lack- ing formal program status, ETO management, training, and funding resources are mod- est. In addition, programs are not subjected to continuous improvement. The institutional setting for ETO within the general emergency management institutional arena is quite different. ETO planning is typically set forth in a formal plan document with specifications for appropriate communications, contacts, and chain of command. Actual response procedures for system restoration often are left to ad hoc responses in the field. Despite the obvious overlap in responsibilities, personnel, infrastructure, and equipment appropriate to ETO, there is only a modest attempt to exploit common needs and resources or to develop common protocols covering traffic and other emergencies both among state DOTs and between DOTs and their public safety counterparts. 56 G U I D E F O R E M E R G E N C Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N O P E R A T I O N S

Guide for Emergency Transportation Operations Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 525: Surface Transportation Security, Volume 6: Guide for Emergency Transportation Operations supports development of a formal program for the improved management of traffic incidents, natural disasters, security events, and other emergencies on the highway system. It outlines a coordinated, performance-oriented, all-hazard approach called “Emergency Transportation Operations” (ETO). The guide focuses on an enhanced role for state departments of transportation as participants with the public safety community in an interagency process.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 73 is a resources guide on ETO containing bibliographical material that may be useful to readers of NCHRP Report 525, Volume 6.

NCHRP Report 525: Surface Transportation Security is a series in which relevant information is assembled into single, concise volumes—each pertaining to a specific security problem and closely related issues. The volumes focus on the concerns that transportation agencies are addressing when developing programs in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the anthrax attacks that followed. Future volumes of the report will be issued as they are completed.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!