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.
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
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.
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 buildingsespecially 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
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
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,
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.
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
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.
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 .
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
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 shortageof 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
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
