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 79
4
Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
The analysis of any natural hazard, including wind hazards, must
consider the interrelated phases of mitigation, preparedness planning,
emergency response, and recovery. Although the focus of this chapter is on
w~nd-induced disasters, these problems wall be addressed with an all-hazards
approach, because many of the basic issues cut across different types of
hazards.
MITIGATION MEASURES
A variety of measures can be undertaken to mitigate the effects of
damaging winds (National Research Council, 1989; Beatley and Berke, 1989~.
Some of these techniques are structural in nature, such as the construction of
barriers and seawalis. Others are of a nonstructural nature, such as those
regarding land use. The direct effect of these actions is to lessen property
destruction, increase occupant safety, and lower the level of disruption to the
communist. Although a number of different activities may be undertaken,
discussion wall be limited to an examination of building code provisions and
land-use management.
Codes and Code Enforcement
The significance of codes and code enforcement is manifested by a
recent survey (Manning, 1991) conducted by the Southern Building Code
Congress International under the auspices of the State Farm Insurance and
Casualty Company. In this surrey, questionnaires and examinations were
administered to the building departments of 12 jurisdictions along the Atlantic
and Gulf coasts. Ratings of these jurisdictions were based on the following
nine factors:
1. construction compliance survey,
2. number of inspectors,
3. inspectors passing examinations,
4. number of plan reviewers,
5. plan reviewers passing examinations,
6. plan renew of residential plans,
7. related building department training and certifications,
S. public awareness and prescriptive provisions, and
9. code editions and certificate of occupancy.
79
OCR for page 80
80 Wnd and the Built Environment
Results of the survey showed an overall rating of 10.4 out of a full score
of 20. The survey also suggested that jurisdictions rating less than 14 are
probably not in compliance with the wind-Ioad provisions of the codes. Only
2 of the 12 jurisdictions scored higher than 14.
Even more alarming is the finding that only about 30 percent of those
taking the building inspector and plan review examinations scored a passing
grade. These results prompted the survey author to recommend that
education for inspectors, plan reviewers, and builders is an area in need of
immediate attention.
These results notwithstanding, the public generally assumes that if a
building subject to a building code is issued a permit, is inspected during the
venous phases of construction, and is finally issued a certificate of occupancy
upon completion, the building must then comply in every respect with the
code, including the ability to sustain wind loads. This may not necessarily be
true, as evidenced by the survey cited above. Several of the reasons for this
discrepancy are elaborated below.
Quality of Code Enforcement. The quality of code enforcement varies
greatly among jurisdictions. Some of the factors determining the quality of a
jurisdiction's code enforcement program include the commitment of elected
officials, political considerations, the salary level offered to personnel, and the
number and qualifications of authorized personnel.
There is increasing awareness of the importance of h~,il~lina Roil
~ - ~~ · 1 ~ ~ . ~ · —
c~uorcemem, as evidenced by the Increasing number of states that have
adopted statewide codes. Increased emphasis is also being placed on the
qualifications of personnel employed to enforce these codes. It is becoming
standard practice, particularly where statewide codes are adopted, to require
that all building inspectors be certified, which usually entails attending a
specified number of hours of continuing education classes each year.
Empincal (Prescriptive) Code Requirements. Over the years, local and
mode] codes have developed empirical provisions to regulate common types
of construction (such as wood-framed or masonry buildings not exceeding two
or three stories in height). These empirical provisions contain minimal
requirements for lateral loading, give no consideration of resistance to high
winds, and are based on construction practices that have "withstood the test
of time" without any type of verification. Technically, adherence to the
empirical requirements does not set aside the need to verily compliance with
the additional provisions for wind loads, earthquake Toads, etc. However, it
is common practice for building permits to be issued for buildings "designed"
to comply with code empincal requirements that have not been subjected to
am engineering analysis to determine if the structure can resist the required
wind loads.
OCR for page 81
Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 81
Empirical provisions generally specify minimum wall thickness or
minimum member sizes and spacing, along with some rudimentary bracing
requirements. Generally, these requirements are not a function of the design
wind pressure, which is, for instance, more than double for a Il0-mph (47-
m/s) wind than for a 70-mph (31-m/s) wind. On the other hand, engineering
analyses and investigations of wind damage show that properly tying the
various structural elements together, so as to provide a continuous load path
to the foundation, is also needed if the structure is to survive the effects of
high winds. Usually, these latter requirements are missing from empirical
· ~
provisions.
Over the last two decades, the increasing desirability of coastal parcels
has led to the construction of a large number of structures that are extremely
vulnerable to high winds. Due to extensive hurricane damage in coastal areas
during this period and the continuing development of these vulnerable zones,
code-making bodies are now focusing more attention on building code
requirements for coastal areas. These efforts have raised many questions
about the validity of some empirical provisions, because when subjected to a
rigorous, rational, engineering analysis, they simply do not work.
Several years ago, North Carolina revised its state building code to
require more stringent empirical provisions for nonengineered structures built
along the Atlantic coast. Many areas of Florida, Texas, and other Gulf states
subject to high winds have enforced prescriptive requirements for small
buildings that are based on engineering evaluation, but the requirements have
not been applied consistently in all areas of concern. Both the Southern
Building Code Congress International and the International Conference of
Building Officials have efforts under way to resolve the apparent conflicts
between their empirical provisions and the results of analytical studies. These
efforts will probably result in major modifications of the empirical provisions,
rather than doing away with them, and will require an engineering analysis
in all cases. The revised provisions will be structured so that the requirements
are a function of the basic wind speed.
Architect and Engineer Registration Laws. A code enforcement program
can be aided by state laws regulating the licensing of architects and engineers.
However, these laws do not apply to most buildings, since it is common
practice to exempt small buildings—especially dwellings from the requirement
that the design be done by a licensed person. In addition, the most stringent
laws are of little value if they are not enforced, and in many instances,
enforcement is haphazard.
In conclusion, the quality of code enforcement greatly influences the
quality of the built environment. Signs point to continued improvement in
both the quality and the quantity of code enforcement personnel. Empincal
provisions of building codes, which heretofore have proved inadequate in
high-w~nd areas, are being reviewed and revised. This should further enhance
the ability of many small buildings to sustain high wind loads. Although it
may be unrealistic to require that all buildings be designed by a licensed
OCR for page 82
82 Wnd and Be Buill Environment
architect or engineer, this may not be necessary if more strict code
enforcement is provided and if codes contain empirical provisions that are
based on realistic wind loads and are the result of structural testing and
analysis.
Land Use Management
In addition to altering the design or construction of buildings and
structures through codes, another nonstructural mitigation measure involves
managing the use of land in areas that are susceptible to w~nd-induced
disasters. The primary goal of this strategy is to prevent or limit the location
of vulnerable populations and commercial, residential, and industrial
development in hazardous areas so as to avoid or reduce exposure to the
hazed. With regard to w~nd-induced hazards, most of the effort in land-use
management has focused upon hurricane mitigation (Brower et al., 1987~.
Little attention has been given to using these measures to mitigate tornado
damage, since tornado vulnerability extends over such broad regions, with
an irregular frequency of return.
The general strategy of land-use management is to influence the
location, density, tinting, aIld type of development in hazardous areas (Brower
et al., 1987~. A variety of specific land-use management tactics may be
employed to implement this strategy. For example, fee-simple land acquisition
in hazardous areas by public authorities can control development and allow
for public use of the property, often as recreation areas. The primary
obstacles to implementing this tactic are the financial costs involved. It is
most feasible where the land is undeveloped. As a second tactic, the control
of development lights may be attempted either through purchase or transfer.
The former involves the actual purchase by the government of development
rights, whereas the latter is a procedure whereby development rights are
transferred from a high-hazard zone to a less hazardous area in the
junsdiction. Large-scale application of the transfer of development rights has
yet to occur for a variety of legal, political, and other reasons.
Probably the most common land-use management tactic employed to
mitigate wind-induced hazards involves zoning or land-use controls. Some of
these measures involve such conventional zoning practices as controlling the
density and type of development. Provisions may include such features as
coastal setbacks, special-use permits, and incentive zoning. In addition,
subdivision regulation can be utilized as can taxation and fiscal incentives.
Also, policies to prevent the location of public facilities in hazardous areas
can be developed and are easily within the purview of governmental units.
Spurred by federal efforts such as the Coastal Zone Management Act
and state and local initiatives, mitigation efforts have increased significantly
since 1970. However, the adoption and implementation of these measures are
still quite uneven. Some states, such as North Carolina, Florida, and South
Carolina, have implemented statewide coastal or beachfront development acts
that provide necessary empowerment for local land-use management. Other
OCR for page 83
Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 83
states have been less active. Even in those states with strong legislation,
however, prior development and a lack of enforcement have resulted in an
increasingly vulnerable condition.
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND RESPONSE FOR DISASTERS
In addition to mitigation, the effective management of w~nd-induced
disasters requires the development of emergency preparedness and response
planning. The levels of destruction and casualties are not dependent simply
upon proper mitigation activities. They are also influenced by the
effectiveness of local warning systems; the quality of evacuation planning; and
the adequacy of postimpact response activities, such as search and rescue, the
provision of emergency medical care, and the restoration of lifelines.
Structure of U.S. Emergency Planning and Disaster Management
-r - -- r -- Cal
In order to understand the status of emergency preparedness and
response planning in the United States, it is useful to provide a brief
background on the historical development of the field and the characteristics
of its current structure. The Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 established the
Federal Civil Defense Administration as a part of the Executive Office of the
President. Most significantly, the act specified that the primary responsibility
for responding to nuclear attacks and other forms of attack resided with the
states and their political subdivisions (i.e., local governments). This
designation became a precedent that exists to this day with regard to all types
of disasters. Throughout the past 40 years the structure has changed many
times. Further, the priority placed upon nuclear attack planning as opposed
to natural and technological disaster preparedness has fluctuated. However,
the mandated authority of the local communities as having primary
responsibility for planning and response for disasters still continues.
Emergency planning and disaster management activities vary
significantly throughout the nation. While larger metropolitan areas and
counties may have full-time, professional staffs and adequate resources to
undertake these activities, many political jurisdictions do not (Hoetmer, 1983~.
Also, the local goverrunental entity charged with emergency and disaster
planning differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some City and county
_ tar
, · ,~ . · ·
unsOlctlons' the emergency management agency is an independent or
autonomous unit. In others, it is a subdivision of a larger agency (Wenger et
al., 1987~. Therefore, there is a lack of standardization among local units in
a number of different respects, including their domains and responsibilities,
the manner in which they undertake planning and response activities, and the
adequacy of their local resources (Drabek, 1985~.
This lack of standardization has two significant consequences for
emergency preparedness and response to wind-induced hazards. First, it
means that planning must be placed within the local community context,
OCR for page 84
84 Wind and the Built Environment
including its hazard vulnerability, past disaster experience, goverrunental
structure, power structure, and resource availability. There is no one, ideal
model of local community planning arrangements that will be appropriate for
all communities (Wenger et al., 1987~. Second, it indicates that it is very
difficult for federal and state agencies to develop planning programs that can
be applied uniformly to all communities.
The Extensiveness of Local Community Emergency Preparedness
To assess the level of emergency preparedness and response planning
in the United States, it is necessary to take an "all-hazards approach" to the
problem. That is, as opposed to only focusing upon planning specifically for
mnd-induced disasters, the evaluation should be in terms of general disaster
planning for all types of hazards. This approach is justified and perhaps more
cost effective and politically attractive because most of the major problems
and functions of planning and response cut across different types of hazards.
It recognizes that the problems of preparedness and response for wind-
induced disasters are not unique, and that planning for general disaster
response can have effective and efficient payoff for any specific hazard,
including those precipitated by winds. For the past decade, FEMA (the
Federal Emergency Management Agengy) has supported an all-hazards
approach to emergency management planning.
SigniJ7c~ Improvement
Preparedness and response planning has significantly improved since
1977. Facilities and resources have been upgraded; emergency operating
centers are now much more common; and computer-aided systems for
decision making and inventory are increasingly being used. There has been
an increase in integrated, comununity-w~de planning that takes an all-hazards
approach (Quarantelli, 1985), and the level of professionalism among the
emergency management community has risen significantly, although there are
still no national, professional standards for the field.
There has also been an attempt to standardize emergency management
principles and models of control through the application of the Incident
Commancl System (ICS) to all types of disasters. Although ICS was originally
developed to coordinate the activities of a large number of fire departments
that were responding to the same incident, it is now advocated as a general
mode} to coordinate all disaster response.
Given the decentralized and nonstandardized nature of emergency
preparedness and response planning, it must be noted that these
improvements do not characterize all local areas or jurisdictions (Wenger et
al., 1987~. Further, most of the improvement in planning appears to be
concentrated on resource procurement, the installation of computer and
comunun~cation equipment, and the construction of physical structures.
OCR for page 85
Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 85
However, the acquisition of material resources obviously does not solve many
of the problems that occur during disaster response. such as those involving
. . . .
O r ~ D
interorganizational authority relationships, coordination, communication, and
conflicts over domain. ICS is an attempt to solve these management
Droblems but its suitability for being adopted in a great variety of local
communities and utilized in all types of disasters has yet to be empirically
established through systematic research (Wenger and Quarantelli, 1988~.
rig ~ ~ ~----~~ ~ o ~~—r
Some Continuing Weaknesses in Community Preparedness Planning
A number of researchers have observed that local planning is
fragmented among several independent clusters (Caplow et al., 1984; Dynes,
1983; Leik et al., 1981; Mader, 1985; Quarantelli, 1985~. Disaster planning is
often undertaken by the "social control sector" of the community, which
includes such local units as government, police, fire, emergency management,
and public works. Further, independent planning is often done by the
"medical and social service sector." Hospitals, emergency medical services, and
social service agencies develop rather elaborate plans for victim assistance.
Also, public utilities and lifeline organizations frequently engage in extensive,
independent training. Finally, emergent y planning is increasingly being
undertaken by organizations from the "private sector." This trend is evident
among those businesses and corporations involved in the production, use, and
transportation of hazardous materials, but it is not limited to them. Business
organizations, schools, and voluntary associations are also becoming more
oriented toward emergency planning.
Unfortunately, these sectors tend to engage in planning in isolation from
one another, although their disaster response activities are inherently
Interrelated. If local response to w~nd-induced hazards is to be effective, it
must involve the integration of various sectors of the community. A
fragmented approach produces inefficient plans and can generate an
ineffective, uncoordinated response.
In addition, some plans continue to be developed as if earthquakes,
floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and toxic spills had no common managerial
requirements. Although the utilization of an all-hazards approach has become
more widespread in recent years, there is still a tendency toward agent-
· ~ -
SpeCl: 1C p. .annmg.
Finally, emergency planning in the United States has tended to focus,
to a considerable degree, upon the immediate pre-impact and postimpact
periods. Planning for recovery and long-range mitigation is not well integrated
into the planning that is designed to guide emergency activities. Although the
phases of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery are viewed as an
interrelated system, planning for the activities tends to be fragmented and
focused on short-te~ needs.
In sum, with regard to general emergency planning, these three
weaknesses indicate the fragmented nature of the planning process. Such
OCR for page 86
86 Hind and the Built Environment
fragmentation impedes the achievement of a system-we, coordinated, and
comprehensive response to disasters.
Specific Emergency Preparedness and
Response Planning for Wind Hazards
Although most of the general planning components of an all-hazards
approach have application for wind-induced disasters, certain elements are
more directly applicable than others. In assessing the state of planning and
preparedness activities, the distinction can be made between pre-impact and
post~mpact periods.
Pre-Impact Activities
The preparedness activities having the most direct applicability for wind-
induced hazards are warning, evacuation, sheltering, and public awareness or
information distribution. There have been significant improvements in the
entire process of warning the public of severe w~nd-induced disasters. As
discussed in Chapter 2, the ability to detect severe winds and issue warnings
has evolved over the years and wall continue to improve with the installation
of the Next-Generation Radar (NEXRAD) system. Humcane predictions
have also improved with technological developments and the use of satellite
monitonng.
Equally important, the National Weather Service has been increasingly
concerned with the dissemination of information to the public. A variety of
communication linkages, including weather radio, a National Warning System,
and the Emergency Broadcasting System, connect the weather service to mass
media outlets and emergent y response organizations. Furthermore, an
understanding of the social and psychological dimensions of warning is
steadily improving the warning process. Researchers have established how
warnings should be issued, who should issue them, how they should be
written, and how they should be disseminated (Drabek, 1986~. Increasingly,
this information is being implemented in the warning process, as officials
realize that a warning that is issued is not necessarily a warning that is
received and acted upon.
Within localities, the status of warning systems varies significantly by
type of hazard and community. Local hurricane warning systems in coastal
areas are relatively good. Although they rely most heavily upon mass media
distribution, they utilize a variety of dissemination devices. The situation with
regard to other types of w~nd-induced hazards is quite mixed and there is
considerable variation in the adequacy of local systems. Some communities
have rather elaborate warning systems. They rely upon the mass media but
also utilize such devices as tone alert and call-down systems. Other
communities still have outmoded siren systems that convey limited
information and suffer from considerable dead spots.
OCR for page 87
Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 87
Planning and preparedness for coastal evacuation has improved
dramatically over the past two decades. Assisted by such technological
innovations as the Sea, Lake and Overland Surge Heights (SLOSH) model
and other computerized decision aids, evacuation planning has improved for
the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Massive evacuations have been successfully
accomplished for a number of hurricanes, including Alicia, Elena, GIona,
Gilbert, and Hugo.
Despite these successes, two problems remain concerning the use of
technical information in emergency response decision making, particularly
during hurricane threats. The first problem stems from a failure to access
available data. For example, the National Hurricane Center issues specific
forecasts about hurricane positions and intensities, but many coastal
communities do not subscribe to the NWS information network.
The second problem involves the difficulty in making effective use of
technical data. Federally Ended and coordinated studies have mapped the
areas that need evacuation in various hurricane scenarios and calculated the
lead times necessary to effect successful evacuations. That information, in
conjunction with hurricane forecasts, should make the timing of evacuation
decisions straightforward. However, the uncertainty (error) of forecasts
complicates decision making, and few communities have developed an
adequate means of incorporating forecast uncertainties into response systems.
Emergency management officials need training and decision-making aids to
help them devise more informed decision strategies.
Evacuation issues illustrate the importance of the linkage between
mitigation, preparedness, and response. With increasing coastal development
there is a corresponding increase in the size of the vulnerable population that
must be evacuated during a hurricane, which in turn can increase the
evacuation time. As a result, the lead time for determining the
appropriateness of evacuation is shortened, and timely forecasts and
predictions are even more important.
States and communities are now attempting to prevent the development
of intractable evacuation situations through the application of land-use
management tools. Planners are required to take actions to mitigate the
impact of proposed developments on shelter demand, roadway capacities, or
evacuation lead times. However, these planners often have insufficient
expertise in projecting the impacts of such developments and would benefit
from more research in this area.
With regard to emergency sheltering, the provision of adequate, safe
shelter for hurricane evacuees is an increasingly challenging problem. Public
schools are often used as shelters because they are public, possess kitchen and
bathroom facilities, have large amounts of floor space, and are usually
numerous and dispersed enough to be accessible to many evacuees. However,
they are not selected as shelters because of any special safety features with
respect to strong winds. As detailed in Chapter I, it is corrunon for schools
to experience significant damage during storms. Although someone with
construction expertise normally inspects buildings and approves their
.
OCR for page 88
AS Wnd and file Built Environment
suitability as shelters in hurricanes, it is rare for such individuals to possess
any special training in wind engineering.
Evacuation is normally recommended or mandated only for buildings
subject to storm surge inundation and, outside the surge zone, for mobile
homes or substandard housing. Emergengy preparedness officials also
question whether housing units several stories above ground level near the
coast will be safe during a strong hurricane. If not, occupants of such units
would have to evacuate them, thereby increasing shelter demand and roadway
congestion, or they would have to take refuge in bathrooms or hallways.
There has been limited research on vertical refuge or shelter (Ruch et al.,
1990~. little is known about how residents would conduct themselves if
advised to leave such structures or if told to stay in only the most secure parts
of the buildings. Although decades of research on human response to disaster
indicate that people respond in a rational and altruistic fashion, there are
some unknowns regarding how people might behave inside buildings during
the storm itself, particularly if utilities, communications, and elevators were
not functioning. These same issues are magnified when considering vertical
refuge in which the buildings are subject to storm surge and in which
nonresidents seek shelter in the upper floors of high-rise structures.
With regard to tornado sheltering, structural improvements can be made
to existing buildings to offer greater safety. For example, any building whose
floor or roof can be uplifted presents greater chances for injury or death.
Buildings with nonlifting floors, such as those constructed of concrete, have
a higher safer margin. For residences, retrofitting for in-residence shelter can
be constructed. Public buildings, such as schools and nursing homes, can be
hardened and outside walls can be reinforced to prevent collapse. In addition,
external shelters may be required as part of state or local zoning measures
for hazardous structures, such as residences with high wind vulnerability.
The adequacy of public information and hazard awareness programs
varies considerably. Certain locales along the Gulf and AtIantic coasts and
some communities within "tornado alley" have extensive programs for public
education about disasters. These "disaster subcultures" have elaborate
provisions and relatively high levels of public awareness and knowledge
concerning appropriate disaster response. However, in other communities,
such programs and the corresponding Levi Of nilblir ;nf~rmati^= are hqc.;~^ll~r
nonexistent.
Postimpact Response Activities
- -~¢ ~ --= ~ ~ ~~_ ^~4 Ill ~1~ Valhalla
In general, research indicates that, as with planning activities' there has
been an improvement in disaster response activities. These include search and
rescue; the provision of emergency medical services; the provision of food,
shelter, and clothing to victims; and the restoration of lifelines and essential
services. However, the improvement in response is not commensurate with
the level of improvement in disaster planning. For example. although
increased attention
Disaster planing. For example, although
to search and rescue over the past two decades has
OCR for page 89
Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 89
resulted in specialized rescue units, more highly trained professionals, and
more sophisticated rescue strategies and techniques (Krimgold and Lopez-
Ramirez, 1989), most search and rescue activity is emergent, unplanned, and
undertaken by volunteers and victims, not by these trained professional units
(Wenger, 1989~. (Further, there is little systematic evidence on how damage
patterns to buildings and structures correlate with injuries and deaths among
victims and how such information influences rescue efforts.)
Similar to the search and rescue issue is the situation of emergency
medical services (EMS). The provision of EMS has improved throughout the
United States, particularly for handling day-to-day emergencies. There is a
tendency for communities to rely upon their daily EMS systems during
disasters, even though it has been demonstrated that these normal systems are
not adequate for handling the increased demands and the qualitatively
different context posed by a disaster (QuaranteDi, 1983~.
Research has also shown that for both individuals and organizations the
postimpact emergency period is epitomized by behavior and activities that rim
counter to popular thought. It is now recognized that the common images of
antisocial behavior, looting, panic, disaster shock and he]D]ess victims are
mv~hica] {Wencher et a] 1975 Cessna
' ~ — -A ~ Or ~
0 —~ ~ ~ _ _
Similarly, there are a number of mythical concerns about organizational
response to disaster. For example, often there are concerns about a shortage
of personnel and matenal resources. Neither of these has been found to be
empirically valid. In fact, a surplus- not a shortage—of personnel and resources
is the general pattern in disaster response as these elements converge uDon
the disaster site.
What are the actual problems related to disaster response? In addition
to the previously noted convergence problem, other concerns are manifest In
such issues as the gathering and distribution of information on the scope of
the disaster, intraorganizational and interorganizational communication,
interorgan~zational coordination, authority relationships, task allocation, and
resource allocation. Disaster planning is often oriented toward solving such
immediate and evident problems as search and rescue, restoration of lifelines,
and sheltering. Little attention is paid to difficulties associated not with the
disaster agent per se, but with the response of the local organizations to that
disaster. To a significant degree, these problems are related to the
fragmentation of the planning effort within local communities.
PLANNING FOR RECOVERY AND FUTURE MITIGATION
Most of the planning for recovery from disasters has been undertaken
at the federal level and is linked to the federal provision of disaster assistance
under the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 198S, which
FEMA has the primary responsibility for adrniriistrating. Following a
presidential declaration of a disaster, a number of assistance programs are
implemented, two of which are particularly relevant to future mitigation
efforts. Section 409 of the 1988 act includes a requirement that calls for those
OCR for page 90
90 Wnd and the Built Environment
state and local governments receiving aid to submit a hazard mitigation plan
that includes safe land-use and construction practices for the disaster areas
In order to receive further federal funds. Section 1362 of the National Flood
Insurance Program allows for the purchase of damaged property and
relocation; however, this program is underfunded when compared with the
estimated number of eligible structures (Brower et al., 1987~.
Local community planning for recovery and the linking of recovery
efforts to future mitigation continue to be very weak in the United States. As
noted previously, most communities focus their disaster planning efforts upon
the immediate pre-impact and postimpact emergency phases. Very little
attention is paid to long-term recovery, which is often viewed as being a
"federal problem." Furthermore, after receiving a presidential declaration,
many communities are unfamiliar with the available federal programs and
must engage in mitigation planning under the Section 405 requirements in an
ad hoc manner.
RECOMMENDATIONS
General Issues Regarding Future Research
There has been a general improvement in emergency management in
the United States for w~nd-induced and other types of disasters, but research
is needed in a number of areas. Regardless of the specific research questions
investigated, future research should be governed increasingly by the following
two pnnc~ples.
First, the study of emergency preparedness and response must be
approached in a multidzsciplina~ fashion The problems cut across a number
of different disciplines, including meteorology, civil engineering, architecture,
landscape architecture, economics, sociology, urban and regional planning,
geography, political science and policy analysis, and medicine. Of course, the
role of meteorologists and civil engineers is critical, particularly with regard
to pre-impact planning and mitigation, but in discussing emergency
preparedness and response, their input must be integrated with that of other
disciplines.
For example, consider research into the impact of tornadoes upon the
loss of life, injuries, and property destruction within co~rununities. Such a
study must not be limited to an examination of traditional engineering
concerns. It must also consider such variables as the nature and effectiveness
of warnings, the timing of the impact (people are more likely to be injured
or to die in automobiles than in structures during tornadoes; normal traffic
and work patterns influence the number of people who become victims), the
nature and implementation of building codes, the nature of the housing stock
within the community, the extent and quality of local emergency preparedness
planning for disasters, and the effectiveness of local emergency medical
provisions.
OCR for page 91
Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 91
As another example, important research should be undertaken on the
epidemiology of death and injury in relationship to wind effects and
destruction to the built and natural environments. Examining the relationship
between structural or nonstructural damage and occupant behavior requires
the input of civil engineers, architects, sociologists, epidemiologists, and
emergency medical specialists.
Second, future research must increasingly utilize a7ui refine quick-response
field methodologies. Disasters can sense as natural laboratories from which to
learn and improve our capabilities to reduce impacts of future events. In this
regard, postdisaster reconnaissance studies are important for evaluation of the
extent to which state-of-the-art knowledge and techniques have been
implemented. If these techniques have not been implemented, problems can
be defined and solutions proposed to eliminate the obstacles in the future.
To ensure a postdisaster study's effectiveness, different phases of
disaster response and recovery should be considered, including the phase
immediately following the disaster during which highly perishable information
can be documented. Postdisaster studies should also include revisits of
. . . . .
disaster sites at various periods after the disaster to monitor its ongoing or
long-term impacts and to assess progress. Some important questions that
should be posed include the following: Have better public policies been
developed and adopted for better land-use management? Have the local
building codes and regulations been updated or improved? Have emergency
planning and response programs been developed or improved? Has any
recovery and reconstruction planning been proposed or developed? Valuable
information collected and analyzed during the hours, days, months, and years
following a disaster can enhance the effectiveness of hazard and risk
assessment, awareness and education, preparedness, prediction and warnings,
atop mitigation.
The Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware has utilized
this approach for 26 years. The Natural Hazards Center at the University of
Colorado funds small projects with the assistance of the National Science
Foundation. The Committee on Natural Disasters of the National Research
Council also supports lifted quick-response studies of a primarily
engineering nature, but the opportunities to engage in this type of research
are currently limited. Increased support is urgently needed.
Specific Research Needs
Future research should focus upon local adoption and implementation of
building code and land-use mitigation measures. As indicated earlier, the
problem with mitigation of w~nd-induced disasters does not lie with the
techniques. The current review and revision of empirical provisions in the
codes promise to increase mitigation in the future, and the techniques of
land-use management are effective tools for Towering the vulnerability of
areas to wind hazards.
OCR for page 92
92 Wnd arid the Buill Environment
Instead, the problem rests with the adoption and implementation of
these measures. The quality of enforcement of building codes in local
communities can be improved. Review and revision of empirical provisions
~ the codes must be undertaken in order to increase the ability of small
buildings to withstand high wind loads. With regard to land-use management
activities, the major difficulty is in gaining adoption, implementation, and
enforcement at the local level. Therefore, the major impediments to
mitigation appear to be embedded in social and Political factors as the ct~.
and local levels.
For example, the organizations that promulgate the predominant
building codes have memberships strongly influenced by the codes. Therefore,
the codes developed and offered by the organizations are not derived purely
on the basis of engineering, but have been modified bv nereeiver1
acceptability and practicality.
r ~ a_
.
-A rip
Even though existing building codes contain imperfections and could be
unproved through further research, the fact remains that much of the nation's
wind damage every year could be prevented if more structures were built in
compliance with existing codes. In some instances, failure to meet these
standards is the result of state and local governments' deliberate decisions to
not adopt them in the belief that the expected benefits of higher constrLlctir~n
standards do not Justin the increased costs.
Even in communities that do adopt the standards, many structures are
built without conforming to the codes. In many cases, communities provide
inadequate staffing or wall to enforce the codes. In other instances, builders
possess insufficient familiarity with the codes or with sound wind construction
techniques. Performance codes, which specie loads that surfaces and
components must withstand, are more difficult to implement or to comply
with than prescriptive codes, which specie construction techniques such as
component dimensions and connection spacings.
Therefore, a priority area for future research is to examine those factors
that influence local adoption of mitigation measures for w~nd-induced
disasters. Research in the area of seismic hazards has recently focused upon
this importar~t issue (Beatley and Berke, 1989; Mader, 1980; Wyner and
Mann, 1983~. This research indicates that a combination of economic, social,
and political factors serves to both facilitate and hinder local adoption.
similar research should be undertaken with regard to wind effects. Factors
that facilitate building code adoption and enforcement within local
communities should be studied. Similar research on the social, political, and
economic impediments to, and incentives for, land-use measures must also be
undertaken. Furthermore, research should focus on the feasibility of using
such nonstructural mitigation measures for hazards other than hurricanes.
Research into the factors associated with state and local recovery planning
is urgenth,' needed. In particular, this research effort should focus upon linking
recovery efforts to mitigation. Such mitigation measures include retrofitting;
land-use management; and effective building code adoption, implementation,
and enforcement. The question of which policies and institutions discourage
states and communities from adopting and enforcing more stringent codes
OCR for page 93
Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, arid Recovery 93
and land-use measures should be addressed. The insurance and financial
industries have exerted little pressure to bring about more w~nd-resistant
construction. 'rhe federal government makes disaster assistance available In
communities experiencing wind disasters without regard to their prior
mitigation efforts, and there appear to be few sanctions for failing to follow
the postdisaster mitigation plans required by FEMA
Research into the continued development and utilization of new technology
with regard to wind-inducec! disaster forecasts ant! prediction should be
supported However, the development of new technologies must be integrated
with efforts to improve local community warning systems. Although the
planned improvements in the National Weather Service detection and
forecast capabilities, such as NEXRAD, are important, they must not be
viewed as constituting a "technological fix." Research should continue to focus
upon improving the linkage between forecasters, the mass media, and the
public.
Epidemiolog~cal studies of the nature of death and injures in disasters in
relationship to damage to the built and natural environment should receive high
pnority. As previously noted, the topic is of extreme importance and requires
a multidisciplinary research effort. Civil engineers, architects, emergency
response experts, sociologists, epidemiologists, emergency medical specialists,
and emergency planners all have important roles to play in this type of study.
Simply put, we need to know definitively how people are killed and injured
nd-induced disasters, how structural and nonstructural damage interact
with human behavior to lessen or increase the risk to life, and how search
and rescue and emergency medical action can reduce the number of
casualties.
Research into humcane evacuation planning is needed in light of increased
coastal development. This research should be multifaceted and should examine
such issues as the utilization of computer-based decision aids, survey research
on evacuation behavior, and transportation modeling.
Sawflies of disaster response should focus upon improving organizational
and ir~terorganuational coordination, damage assessment, integrating volunteer
with organizational efforts in search and rescue, and improving the restoration
of lifelu~e services. Although disaster planning has improved within the United
States, disaster response continues to be hindered by a number of problems.
Central to them are the difficulties in coordinating response activities across
a v~eb of public and private response agencies. In particular, damage
assessment is often not well planned or coordinated. There is also a serious
need to examine how the massive search and rescue activities of volunteers
can be integrated with those of professional rescue units. Finally, research on
the restoration of lifelines is urgently needed. Some of the important research
questions posed in this area include the following: What are the central
problems faced by lifeline organizations in the aftermath of disaster and how
can they be solved? What are the critical lifeline services that should receive
priority attention? What components of emergency response are most
dependent upon which types of lifelines?
OCR for page 94
94 Mind and the Built Environment
Research should be focused upon lessening the fragmentation inherent in
emergency planning and response for wind-induced disasters. Research should
be undertaken to examine alternative strategies for integrating emergency and
disaster preparedness and response efforts within local communities. A
number of issues are ripe for study. For example, research into integrating
emergency preparedness planning with the normal, ongoing professional
planning efforts within communities should be encouraged as a step toward
eliminating the fragmentation of planning within communities. With regard
to response, systematic and objective research on the effectiveness and
applicability of the Incident Command System to all settings should be
undertaken given its rapid dissemination and adoption.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
emergency preparedness
