On February 26, 1997, Vice President Gore requested that federal departments and agencies evaluate the feasibility of a global disaster information network (GDIN) that would integrate and disseminate information to provide better warnings to emergency managers and thereby improve preparedness and response to natural or environmental disasters. This request led to establishment of the Disaster Information Task Force (DITF) to consider the needs and issues associated with such a system. The DITF focused on integration of all sources of information, public or private, and the linkage of those sources with disaster managers, with an initial emphasis on the United States because of the amount and diversity of activity here. Of particular interest was the potential for public-private partnerships in serving users' needs. The results of the DITF study are summarized in Harnessing Information and Technology for Disaster Management—The Global Disaster Information Network (DITF, 1997).

Attention to the dissemination of information about natural disasters is motivated by the large losses caused by natural hazards in recent years and by the increasing vulnerability of people who have migrated into hazardous areas and by urbanization. It is generally believed that future losses can be significantly reduced through the application of advances in communications, remote sensing, and computing. Such capabilities make it possible to deliver crucial information to decision makers in a timely manner.

The GDIN Transition Team, which was formed in January 1998 to follow the DITF, sought perspectives on the use of information for natural disaster loss reduction from experts in the public and private sectors, including state and local governments, insurance and other industries, and academia. To this end, it requested that the National Research Council's (NRC) Board on Natural Disasters (BOND) undertake an assessment of how a global or national disaster information network (DIN) could best provide appropriate information on natural disasters to public and private users of such information for purposes of natural disaster management and loss reduction. In response, through this effort the BOND undertook the task to:

• identify which types of data and information the federal agencies could make available with respect to earthquake, volcano, flood, drought, debris flow, wind, wildfire, and severe storm hazards in the United States;
• examine the kinds of tools and products that are available or could be developed to integrate information into forms most useful by property owners, local businesses, and community leaders who must make decisions concerning how to make communities more disaster resilient; and
• recommend ways, within the context of the proposed DIN, to improve the utilization of disaster information for decision makers.

This assessment was carried out by the BOND itself rather than through a committee formed by the board. BOND is a multidisciplinary group of 12 members with expertise in the relevant geological, hydrological, and atmospheric hazards and related disaster management skills. It is responsible for organizing and overseeing the NRC's program on natural disaster issues. To carry out the study, the BOND conducted a three-day workshop in Washington, D.C., which served as the major information-gathering, deliberative, and report-drafting event for the study (see Appendix A). The workshop afforded the opportunity for discussions with federal officials engaged in DIN planning and other experts with experiences beyond those of the BOND members. In addition, it provided for extensive deliberations by BOND members.

This report was drafted by BOND members at the workshop and subsequently refined. It presents an assessment of how natural disaster information can best be provided to public and private users for purposes of natural disaster mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. The BOND did not undertake to produce a detailed implementation plan, as that would be the responsibility of the GDIN Transition Team. Rather, this report offers strategic advice and guidance to the transition team. It should also be useful to federal officials engaged in planning and designing the proposed DIN and of interest to decision makers at other levels of government and in the private sector engaged in activities relevant to the communication of data and information in the interest of natural disaster loss reduction and the management of associated natural resources.

The efforts of the BOND members, advisers, staff, and other workshop participants are greatly appreciated. Additionally, the board acknowledges and thanks several individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise to review the report, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the authors and the NRC in making the published report as sound as

possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study's charge. The content of the review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. The reviewers, to whom the board is very grateful, are Peter S. Anderson, Simon Fraser University; James P. Bruce, Ottawa, Canada; George M. Hornberger, University of Virginia; William Scherlis, Carnegie Mellon University; John C. Scott, Center for Public Service Communications; and Giles Whitcombe, Cambridge, Massachusetts. While the reviewers provided many constructive comments and suggestions, responsibility for the final content of the report rests solely with the BOND as the authoring body and the NRC.

Finally, it should not be inferred from this report, with its focus on information dissemination, that existing data (even from the most advanced databases) could not benefit from technological advances in monitoring, more intense monitoring, and further research. For example, assessment of the threat posed by earthquakes is steadily evolving as new knowledge comes to light about the location and nature of active faults and the response of structures to strong ground shaking. Likewise, new understanding of flood risk is being generated by greater understanding of the paleohydrological record. Many other examples could be cited in support of the cautionary argument that any new dissemination effort must supplement and not replace current natural hazard and vulnerability data collection and analysis efforts.