EDMG530Wk3

References Burton, I., Kates, R.W., & White, G. (1978). The Environment as Hazard. In Human System Responses to Disaster: An Inventory of Sociological Findings. Thomas E. Drabek (ed). New York: Oxford University Press.

Are you prepared

Apathy

Dilbert - Disaster Recovery PlanDilbert - Disaster Recovery Plan

Is there a lack of concern of toward emergency preparedness and mitigation that could contribute to increased economic impact of disasters?

Disasters are not events in which most people are interested (unless they are happening somewhere else). They are unpleasant to contemplate and no one likes to think of their friends or family dying or lying injured after some devastating event. Apathy is a basic lack of interest or awareness. In our discussion, we want to consider how apathy affects the economics of disaster response, recovery, preparedness, and mitigation.

There are at least five commonly accepted reasons why the general public is apathetic toward emergency preparedness and mitigation activities. These are (a) lack of awareness, (b) underestimation of risk, (c) reliance on technology, (d) denial, and (e) social pressures.

Additionally there are several social factors that influences much of the public’s potential for apathy toward preparedness and mitigation including, (a) experience, (b) age, (c) gender, (d) location, (e) job dependence, (f) culture, and (g) personality.

Following is a description from a 2010 book containing a collection of chapters written by experts who convened in Dubai along with 700 others in the inaugural meeting of the World Economic Forum's Global Agenda Councils. One council, the Council on the Mitigation of Natural Disasters, recommended a holistic approach to the issue of mitigation:

"Events ranging from Hurricane Katrina to the global economic crisis have taught businesspeople an unforgettable lesson: if you don’t plan for “extreme risk,” you endanger your organization’s very survival. But how can you plan for events that go far beyond anything that occurs in normal day-to-day business? In Learning from Catastrophes, two renowned experts present the first comprehensive strategic framework for assessing, responding to, and managing extreme risk. Howard Kunreuther and Michael Useem build on their own breakthrough work on mitigating natural disasters, extending it to the challenges faced by real-world enterprises”.

“Along with the contributions of leading experts in risk management, heuristics, and disaster recovery, they identify the behavioral biases and faulty heuristics that mislead decision makers about the likelihood of catastrophe. They go on to identify the hidden links associated with extreme risks, and present techniques for systematically building greater resilience into the organization. The global best-seller The Black Swan told executives that “once in a lifetime” events are far more common and dangerous than they ever realized. Learning from Catastrophe shows them exactly what to do about it."

Does apathy drive increased response and recovery costs?

Hazard, Risk & Safety - Understanding Risk Assessment, MHazard, Risk & Safety - Understanding Risk Assessment, M……

If there are so many tools to minimize the economic impact of disasters, why haven’t risk reduction and mitigation programs been more widely applied? There are several factors including denial of the risk, political will, costs, and lack of funding and the taking issue. In spite of the best technical knowledge, historic occurrence, public education, and media attention, many individuals don’t want to recognize that they or their communities are vulnerable.

Making a risk acceptable must be considered when developing mitigation strategies. How does one deal with an unacceptable risk? There are two ways to answer this question: one, reduce the risk to make it “acceptable”; or two, eliminate the risk. Even after a major disaster, for a variety of reasons residents are often reluctant to leave the affected area. A real estate developer standing on the ground floor of a new apartment building on the floodplain of a creek in a Missouri valley town was asked whether he thought he was taking any risk in locating a structure there. He replied to the contrary and, when pressed, observed further that he knew that the stream had many years earlier

reached a stage at the point as high as his shoulders. How then could he say there was no risk? His answer was, “There isn’t any risk; I expect to sell this building before the next flood season” (Burton, Kates, and White, 1978, 96).

While the monetary cost of disasters can be estimated at some point, it is very difficult to assess the true financial impact of lost jobs, wildlife lost, and damage to the environment. It is generally decades for long-term recovery to return a community struck by disaster to somewhat normal or as many may refer to as the new normal.

This map shows seven earthquake-generated tsunami events in the United States from the years 900 to 1964. The earthquakes that caused these tsunamis are: Prince William Sound, Alaska, 1964, magnitude 9.2; Chile, 1960, magnitude 9.5; Alaska, 1946, magnitude 7.3; Puerto Rico/Mona Rift, 1918, magnitude 7.3 to 7.5; Virgin Islands, 1867, magnitude undetermined; Cascadia, 1700, magnitude 9; and Puget Sound, 900, magnitude 7.5. Map not to scale. Sources: National Geophysical Data Center, NOAA, USGS

Crescent City, Calif., is heavily damaged following a tsunami generated in Alaska on March 28, 1964. (University of California- EERC photo)

Tsunami Impacts USGS Science Priorities

• The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami reached heights of 65 to 100 feet in Sumatra, caused more than 200,000 deaths from Indonesia to East Africa, and registered on tide gauges throughout the world.

• The 1964 Alaska tsunami led to 110 deaths, some as far away as Crescent City, Calif.

• In 1918, an earthquake and tsunami killed 118 people in Puerto Rico. Sev eral such events have struck this region in historic times

• A tsunami that originated along the Washington, Oregon, and California coasts in 1700 overran Native American fishing camps and caused damage in Japan.

• Identify and quantify tsunami sources, such as earthquake faults, volcanoes, and landslides

• Assess tsunami sources and hazards and model tsunami generation

• Improve understanding of how tsuna- mis are generated and incorporate this information into probabilities of tsu- nami hazards in different areas

• Assess tsunami inundation hazards by interpreting tsunamis

USGS Science Helps Build Safer Communities Tsunami Hazards—A National Threat

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey

Fact Sheet 2006–3023 February 2006Printed on recycled paper

Tsunami events in the United States and Puerto Rico

A Real Risk for the United States

In December 2004, when a tsunami

killed more than 200,000 people in 11

countries around the Indian Ocean, the

United States was reminded of its own

tsunami risks.

In fact, devastating tsunamis have

struck North America before and are sure

to strike again.

Especially vulnerable are the five

Pacific States—Hawaii, Alaska, Wash-

ington, Oregon, and California—and the

U.S. Caribbean islands.

In the wake of the Indian Ocean

disaster, the United States is redoubling

its efforts to assess the Nation’s tsunami

hazards, provide tsunami education, and

improve its system for tsunami warning.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

is helping to meet these needs, in partner-

ship with the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

and with coastal States and counties.

**1964 Prince William Sound

1960 Chile

1946 Alaska

1918 Puerto Rico / Mona Rift

1867 Virgin Islands

1700 Cascadia

900 Puget Sound

*

Tsunami Facts

• Tsunamis are triggered by earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, submarine land- slides, and by onshore landslides in which large volumes of debris fall into the water. All of these triggers can occur in the United States.

• If a tsunami-causing disturbance occurs close to the coastline, a resulting tsunami can reach coastal communities within minutes.

• Although many people think of a tsunami as a single, breaking wave, it typically consists of multiple waves that rush ashore like a fast-rising tide with power- ful currents. Tsunamis can travel much farther inland than normal waves.

For More Information http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/tsunami/— USGS tsunami research

http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project- pages/caribbean/—USGS research into tsunami hazards in the Caribbean

http://www.usgs.gov/

An automobile, carried by surging water during the December 26, 2005, Indian Ocean tsunami, lies crumpled in a building in Banda Aceh, Indonesia. (USGS photo/Guy Gelfenbaum)

Following the December 26, 2005, Indian Ocean tsunami, debris and standing water are the only things left in parts of Banda Aceh, Indonesia. (USGS photo/Guy Gelfen- baum)

Tsunami Warnings

In 2005, the President’s tsunami-warn-

ing initiative directed $37.5 million to

the USGS and NOAA to improve the

Nation’s domestic tsunami detection and

warning system.

As part of that commitment, the USGS

has received $13.5 million to strengthen

its ability to detect global earthquakes

both through 24-7 analysis of earthquake

events and through improvements in

the Global Seismographic Network, a

partnership with the National Science

Foundation (NSF) and the Incorporated

Research Institutions for Seismology.

These changes are enabling the USGS

to provide NOAA’s tsunami-warning

centers with faster, more accurate esti-

mates of earthquake location and size.

Domestic Tsunami Hazards

The USGS assesses tsunami hazards

in the United States by investigating past

tsunamis, identifying potential tsunami

sources, mapping tsunami-prone coasts,

and creating simulations of tsunami

inundation. Emergency managers use

this information in hazard planning and

mitigation.

The USGS played major roles in docu-

menting the tsunamis generated by the

magnitude 9.2 Alaska earthquake in 1964

and in discovering previously unknown

tsunami hazards in Washington, Oregon,

and California. These findings were a key

impetus for the National Tsunami Hazard

Mitigation Program.

International Efforts

The USGS has teamed up with

NOAA, the U.S. Agency for International

Development, and other Federal agencies

and scientific organizations to provide

scientific information and support of

relief efforts around the Indian Ocean.

This work builds on a rapid response

in early 2005, when USGS geologists

investigated tsunami effects in Sri Lanka,

Indonesia, and the Republic of Maldives,

and provided field training to scientists

from Indonesia and India.

These activities are coordinated

through the Intergovernmental Oceano-

graphic Commission, a branch of the

United Nations Educational, Scientific,

and Cultural Organization. The USGS is

particularly active in working groups that

address seismic monitoring and hazard

assessment.

The United States is also a member of

the Group on Earth Observations. This

group is committed to the development of

a worldwide, all-hazards warning system

as part of the integrated Global Earth

Observation System of Systems.

Through such efforts at home and

abroad, the USGS helps the public,

policymakers, and emergency manag-

ers make informed decisions on how to

reduce losses from future tsunamis.