Discussion 8
Mitigation Tools and Best Practices
A. Hazard Mitigation Tools and Map Products
The Flood Map Modernization (Map Mod) Program was initiated by FEMA in
2003 as part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to update flood maps and
provide accurate flood risk data in GIS format on the Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(DFIRMs). The program was funded by Congress from fiscal year (FY) 2003 to FY2008
and provided 92% of the population with these digital maps (FEMA, n.d.c). In this
process, 95% of the paper flood maps were eliminated and transformed into a GIS-based
digital inventory of flood hazard data. Besides reducing the cost of paper map production,
this allows community officials and others more flexibility in data sharing, hazard
analysis, and risk assessment, as GIS information can be easily integrated with other local
GIS data layers. The Map Mod Program also developed the Mapping Information
Platform (MIP) so that stakeholders could access flood hazard data through the Internet.
The platform supports integration of multihazard data and provides a greater view for
assessing the risks.
The Map Mod Program laid the foundation for FEMA’s new Risk Mapping,
Assessment, and Planning (Risk MAP) Program (Figure 11.1), which initiated in 2009.
The objectives of the Risk MAP Program are to identify and mitigate flood risk through
more precise flood mapping products, risk assessment tools, and planning and outreach
support, and to enable communities to make informed decisions about reducing risk
(FEMA, 2011). In order to achieve these purposes, FEMA works in collaboration with
federal, state, tribal, and local partners across the nation. Risk MAP focuses on delivering
quality products and services that go beyond the traditional Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) and increase public awareness and actions to reduce the risks of flood hazard
(FEMA, 2011). The program is implemented by all 10 FEMA regional offices in close
collaboration with community partners.
FEMA provides hazard mitigation assistance (HMA) grants, such as the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), to states and local governments, enabling the
implementation of long-term hazard mitigation measures that are cost effective and
designed to reduce the loss of life and property or future damage from natural disasters.
Such grant proposals require the inclusion of a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) carried out
according to the FEMA-approved methodology to validate the cost-effectiveness of the
mitigation project. In the BCA, future benefits of the proposed mitigation projects are
estimated and compared to the cost of the projects. The result of this analysis is the
benefit cost ratio (BCR), which is derived by dividing a project’s net benefits by its total
costs (FEMA, n.d.a). Based on the BCA, a project is considered to be cost effective when
the net benefit of the project exceeds its total costs or when the BCR is greater than 1.
FEMA has developed the Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) Tool software to perform BCAs
for applications submitted under FEMA’s HMA grant programs.
The BCA tool automates cost-effectiveness analysis and allows the grant
applicants to calculate a project BCR. Using this tool, applicants enter data regarding
their mitigation projects and structures in the data fields of the program. The cost-
effectiveness of the project is determined by builtin calculations using the user-provided
data. Default values such as FEMA standard values and the results of previously
conducted economic and statistical analyses have been assigned to certain data fields in
the BCA tool (FEMA, n.d.a). However, the software allows users to override some of the
prefilled standard data inputs, such as the Project Useful Life standard value. In this case,
users must justify the value by providing documentation explaining and supporting their
new value.
B. Cameo
Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations (CAMEO) is a “system
of software applications used widely to plan for and respond to chemical emergencies”
(EPA, n.d.). The tool was developed by the Office of Response and Restoration of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in collaboration with the
Office of Emergency Management (OEM) of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and introduced first in 1986. The software suite consists of four core programs:
CAMEOfm, CAMEO Chemicals, Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres
(ALOHA), and MARPLOT, which can be used together or separately to assist first
responders and emergency planners access key information quickly. They system
integrates data management modules, a chemical database, an air dispersion model, and a
mapping platform. Emergency planners and responders can use CAMEO to access, store,
and evaluate critical information for developing emergency plans. The software also
helps users to comply with the regulatory requirements of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA, also known as SARA Title III) for chemical
inventory reporting.
ALOHA is a modeling application that predicts threat zones associated with
hazardous chemical releases such as toxic gas clouds, fires, or explosions. A threat zone
is an area that has exceeded a user-specified level of concern (LOC) for a particular
hazard (NOAA, n.d.a). ALOHA can also calculate how quickly chemicals are releasing
from tanks or pipelines and predict the changes over time. The scenarios and threat zones
can be displayed on MARPLOT (Figure 11.2), which is a GISbased mapping platform
for this system. The Digital Coast (http://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast) is a web-based
repository developed by the NOAA Office for Coastal Management for the coastal
managers, planners, decision makers, and technical users to provide geospatial data,
training, case studies, and a number of tools related to coastal hazard issues, including sea
level rise, climate change, coastal resilience, hurricanes, and coastal flooding. According
to the program’s website in early 2015, 4446 coastal communities within the United
States utilize the Digital Coast. Furthermore, the most frequently accessed tools include
the Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Impacts Viewer, Coastal County Snapshots,
Historical Hurricane Tracks, ENOW Explorer (containing economic information), and
Land Cover Atlas.
The Digital Coast Partnership includes NOAA, the American Planning
Association, Association of State Floodplain Managers, Coastal States Organization,
National Association of Counties, National Estuarine Research Reserves Association,
National States Geographic Information Council, The Nature Conservancy, and Urban
Land Institute (NOAA, n.d.b). The partners work together to provide relevant data, tools,
and information on key coastal issues, as well as support events such as conferences,
webinars, workshops, and meetings for coastal professionals to ensure informed decision
making about how to use coastal resources.
The Earthquake Hazards Program developed by the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) provides earthquake data, including real-time and historic earthquake catalogs,
GIS data, and seismic hazard analysis tools that create customized hazard maps to assess
individual and overall hazards. The real-time and historical earthquake data and the
mapping tools have been a great resource for communities in preparedness, response,
recovery and mitigation efforts. Recently, USGS has developed the Open Seismic Hazard
Analysis (OpenSHA) tool in collaboration with the Southern California Earthquake
Center (SCEC), which can estimate earthquake risks accommodating both past and future
models (USGS, n.d.). As the name suggests, the tool is an open-source project and is
currently a work in progress. Although OpenSHA initially focused on California, the
project has now been incorporated into the National Sesmic Hazard Mapping (NSHMP)
at the USGS, and also into the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) project.
Hazus (which is the acronym for Hazards United States) is GIS-based loss
estimation software developed by FEMA that contains models for estimating potential
losses of a community or a region from earthquakes, floods and hurricanes. The HAZUS
Earthquake Model was first released in 1997 as HAZUS97. In 2004, FEMA released the
multihazard version of Hazus, Hazus-MH, which has been updated several times.
Although the software was developed with a focus on the United States, the Hazus model
has been adopted for use by emergency management organizations in Singapore, Canada,
Australia, and Pakistan. Hazus-MH can be effectively used in all phases of emergency
management especially in mitigation. Figure 11.3 shows how Hazus-MH can be applied
in all steps of the risk assessment process. Hazus-MH can analyze potential loss estimates
of a community based on (i) physical damage to buildings and structures including
schools, critical facilities, and infrastructure; (ii) economic losses such as job reduction,
business interruption, and repair and reconstruction costs; and (iii) social impacts,
including estimates of shelter requirements and displaced households and population
affected by floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes.
In Hazus-MH, analysis can be done with default hazard, inventory, and damage
information, which requires less expertise and is considered as Level 1 or basic estimates.
In Level 2, more accurate loss estimates are produced by including detailed information
on local hazard conditions and/or by replacing the default inventories with more accurate
local inventories of buildings, essential facilities, and other infrastructure. And in Level 3,
expert adjustment of analysis parameters and advanced capabilities such as the Advanced
Engineering Building Module (AEBM) and the Potable Water System Analysis Model
(POWSAM) can be used, which requires a high degree of expertise in Hazus architecture
and file structure.
C. Hazus-MH Tutorials
This example will show how to conduct a loss estimation analysis with a flood
model using default data. Here, we will estimate the number of people who will evacuate
and require short-term shelter during a 100- year flood event for a selected study region.
The first step of conducting a Hazus analysis is to define the study region. Study regions
can be created with states, counties, census tracts, or census blocks. After opening the
Hazus-MH software, you can create a new region by selecting the option from the startup
window (Figure 11.5) to define the study region. After selecting OK, another pop-up
window will open, where you have to enter the name of the study region. For this
example, we have selected Calhoun County, AL, as our study region.
Then, we select Alabama and Calhoun County from the State and County
selection windows, respectively. When you press the Finish button, the program will
create the study region, which may take some time. Once the region is created, you can
open the region from the Open a Region option in the startup window by entering the
name of the study region (e.g., Calhoun_Alabama). Click Next and then Finish to open
the study region. Figure 11.9 shows the outline of our study region—Calhoun County,
Alabama. Next, we will select the Flood Hazard Type from the Hazard menu. We will do
this analysis for the riverine floods only for this example; thus, the Riverine Only option
is selected. Click OK.
Now, we will import Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data for the study region.
We need to select the ‘User Data’ option from the Hazard menu. It will open the User
Data window (Figure 11.11). In this window, select the first tab (i.e., DEM). Then, select
the Determine Required DEM Extent button at the bottom. This will open the DEM
Extent window, which shows the latitude and longitude coordinates or the extent of the
required USGS DEM data (Figure 11.12). Now, we have to select the Navigate Directly
to the NED Download button in the middle. This will take us to the data download page
from the USGS website. Click on the Download button under the USGS icon on the
website (Figure 11.13). Close the DEM Extent window. Now the downloaded DEM data
need to be incorporated into the study region. The downloaded data will be extracted first
into the computer. Next, from the User Data window (refer back to Figure 11.11), select
the vertical unit as Meters and the vertical datum as NAVD88. Here, using the Browse
button, we can locate the extracted file of the DEM data. Click OK. The computer will
process the DEM file for the study region.
The next step is to generate a stream network. Select the Develop Stream Network
option from the Hazard menu (Figure 11.14). Specify the appropriate stream drainage
area that affects stream density in the box (in units of square miles). For this example, we
put 10 square miles. Click OK. Hazus-MH will process the DEM to determine the
locations of the stream for the study area. When the process is completed, the identified
streams will appear in the study region (Figure 11.15). Next, we have to define a scenario
for the analysis. Click New from the Scenario option under the Hazard menu. The Create
New Scenario window will open, where we have to enter a name and a description of the
scenario. After clicking OK, another window called New Scenario will pop up. In this
window, you can select the streams that you would like to include in the scenario from
the River Reaches options. Use the Add to Sselection button to manually select the
streams in your study region to incorporate in the analysis. In this case, we select all of
the streams located in our study area (Figure 11.16). Once the streams are selected, click
the Save Selection button in the scenario window to save the selected streams. Click OK
to close the New Scenario window.
For this example, we select the Single Return Period option. Click OK, and then
click Yes again for raster processing. This will also take some time. Now, select the
Parameters option under the Analysis menu. Then click on the Shelter submenu. The
Shelter Parameters window will open. This will allow us to define the parameters for our
shelter assessment. We would like to estimate the number of people who will evacuate, as
well as the number of people that will require short-term shelter for a 100- year flood
event in Calhoun County, Alabama. The first tab in the Shelter Parameters window is
Evacuation. Enter the depth (in feet) in the Access box at which people are no longer
allowed to go in or out of the flooding zone. For this example, we use 0.5 feet. Also, we
have to specify the evacuation buffer (in feet) under the Evacuation Zone (e.g., 500 feet).
This value will be added to the current floodplain polygon. The flood model will then
estimate the total population within the floodplain polygon and the buffer to estimate the
displaced population.
The second tab in this window is Utility Factors. This tab is used to estimate the
number of people who need short-term shelter. For instance, we put 10% in the box of
Percent of Affected Households under Utility Outage. Users can modify the weightage
applied to certain demographic characteristics from the Weighting Factors tab. The
Modification Factors tab can be used to modify the weightage or importance of different
age and income groups. In this case, the default weighting factors are used. Besides
Shelter, users can also set parameters such as Debris, Casualties, Agricultural Products,
Direct Social Loss, and Indirect Economic Loss from the Analysis menu. The next step is
to run the analysis from the Analysis menu. Click Run, and the Analysis Options window
will open (Figure 11.18). In the Analysis Options window, users can check the boxes that
they are interested in and click OK. General building stock, essential facilities, some
selected infrastructures, agricultural products, vehicles, debris, and shelter requirements
are the items on which Hazus-MH can conduct default analysis runs.
Click OK; it will take some time to process the results. Then, once the results are
available, select the View Current Scenario Results By option from the Results menu.
Choose the available hazard analysis from Available Results and click OK. Results can
be viewed in tabular, map, or printed report formats. To view the results in tabular format
(Figure 11.19), we will select Shelter from the Results menu. We can also map the
number of displaced people by selecting the column Displaced Population and then
clicking on Map. It will show the displaced population by census blocks. Similarly, other
results can be viewed from the Results menu. You can also conduct a detailed analysis
with user-supplied data. More information regarding the flood model analysis can be
found in the Hazus-MH User Manual for the Flood Model by FEMA.
The next example will show how to run a loss estimation analysis for the Hazus-
MH hurricane model using default data. The first step is to define a study region similar
to the flood model. For this example, we will use Mobile County, Alabama, as our study
region for the hurricane model. Here, we have to select Hurricane as the Hazard Type
(Figure 11.21). Once the study region is created, you can open it using the Open a Region
option (similar to the flood model described previously). After opening the study region,
we will open the Scenario Wizard from the Scenario option under the Hazard menu.
Next, we will activate the Probabilistic option from the Hurricane Scenario options. The
Probabilistic scenario option produces seven return period results (for 10, 20, 50, 100,
200, 500, and 1000 years) on total economic loss for the selected study region estimated
from a 100,000-years simulated storm database. Sample storms from each return period
are randomly selected for the study region (FEMA n.d.f). For the Historic storm option,
you can choose a historical storm to run the analysis. Hazus-MH historic storms database
is derived from the HURDAT database of the NOAA/National Hurricane Center and only
include category 3 and higher hurricanes at landfall (FEMA, n.d.f). You can also use your
own storm data or define storm track manually using the Create New Scenario option.
For this example, we select the Probabilistic option (Figure 11.23), and then choose “Yes.
Make this scenario active” in the next window and click Finish to exit the Scenario
Wizard.
Next, we will run the analysis from the Analysis menu. The Analysis Options
window will open; here, you can either Select All or select the specific options that
interest you. In this example, we will select the Select All option. Then, click on Run
Analysis (Figure 11.24). The process will take some time. When it is completed, the
results can be viewed from the Results menu for different options in either tabular or
graphic format. You can also select the damage probability results for each column and
display it on the map. For instance, the At Least Moderate damage probability column is
selected here to display the results on the map for the at least moderate damage
probabilities for residential buildings in Mobile, Alabama (Figure 11.26). You can also
view the damage probabilities for other return periods. Users can also view the summary
reports from the Summary Reports option under the Results menu.
This example shows the steps of running a loss estimation analysis using only
default data in the Hazus-MH earthquake model. Similar to other previous examples, we
will first define the study region and then choose the Earthquake option as the Hazard
Type for using this model. The study region for this example is San Diego County,
California (Figure 11.27). Next, we have to define a scenario. From the Hazard menu,
click the Scenario option. The Scenario Wizard will open. We will select the Define a
New Scenario option, and then we will choose Arbitrary Event. Next, we need to select
the Attenuation Function (FEMA, n.d.d). Here, we will select West U.S. Extensional
2008 as the Attenuation function and choose the fault type Normal. In the following
window, we have to set the Arbitrary Event Parameters and enter the latitude and
longitude of the epicenter of an arbitrary event. Click the Map button, and a map window
will pop up where you can select any point on the study region as the epicenter.
Once you select the epicenter, press the Selection Done button. It will
automatically enter the latitude and longitude information on the Scenario Wizard. Here,
you also have to define the magnitude of the earthquake. For this example, we entered 7
to represent a 7.0 magnitude earthquake (Figure 11.29) and named the earthquake event
as “Arbitrary_M7”. Click next to see the summary of the defined scenario (Figure 11.30).
Click Finish and close the Scenario Wizard. Select Run from the Analysis menu to run
the analysis. From the Analysis Options window, the user can choose All or select
specific options. Once the options are selected, click OK. The process will take some
time. The analysis results can be accessed through the Results menu and can be viewed in
tabular and graphic format. For this example, we selected General Building Stock and
then Damage by Building Type under the Results menu. The results will appear in tabular
format. Figure 11.31 displays the damage state probabilities from a 7.0 magnitude
earthquake in San Diego, California, by building type.
D. Mitigation Best Practices in The United States
Hurricane Ike is the third-costliest hurricane in U.S. history, after Katrina and
Sandy, respectively. Ike made landfall at Galveston, Texas, as a category 2 hurricane on
September 13, 2008, causing a great deal of havoc and damage. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) identified several best practices of mitigation measures
after Hurricane Ike, which are discussed in the next sections. The Bolivar Peninsula is
located in Galveston County, Texas. It separates the eastern part of Galveston Bay from
the Gulf of Mexico. In 2008, Hurricane Ike devastated this 33-mile-long (53 km) narrow
strip of land, which was unprotected by a seawall or any other barrier. During the
disaster, 20 people were reported dead and 2087 buildings along the peninsula suffered
varying degrees of damage from the storm. Only 102 buildings were left unscathed, such
as the one shown in Figure 12.1. The house shown in this figure was one of the most
recently constructed houses in the Sea Breeze subdivision.
Another example of using building codes was the house pictured in Figure 12.2 in
the City of Shoreacres in Harris County, Texas. The 12-foot storm surge from Hurricane
Ike damaged 575 of the 650 homes in this city as it took on more than 3 feet of
floodwater. But this home was not damaged due to following the established codes. The
house was built in 2002, and a building inspector enforced the codes very diligently
during the process. For instance, the city of Shoreacres requires 1 foot of freeboard above
the base flood elevation, i.e., 11 feet, but the inspector required that the home be elevated
approximately 9 inches above the city’s 12-foot requirement (Figure 12.2). He also
ensured that everything was tied down, strapped, and wrapped during the framing to
make the house sturdy (Hanchett, 2008). All of these measures paid off six years later
when Hurricane Ike blew into town.
In 2006, Mayor Larry Davison of Surfside Beach, Texas, had bought and cleared
9 houses that were along the beachfront on the Gulf of Mexico. The buyout was made
possible with funds from the state of Texas and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) funding from FEMA. The program in Surfside Beach also included the planned
relocation of 11 other beachfront homes and the construction of a new sea barricade
(FEMA, 2008). In 2008, Hurricane Ike wiped out all of the remaining houses on the front
row (Figure 12.3). The buyout decision by the mayor using the HMGP funds was a good
investment for Surfside Beach, as it saved lives and property damages worth of millions
of dollars during Hurricane Ike.
Located behind the Galveston Seawall, the Kroger grocery store survived
Hurricane Ike with minimal damage and reopened in only 31 /2 days due to its mitigation
measures, preparedness, and commitment to serve the community. The initial design of
the store included a raised lot, 2 feet higher than the building code and designed to deflect
water if it crested the seawall, to either side of the store. Prior to Hurricane Ike, the
employees prepared the store for the storm, shuttering the windows, sandbagging the
doors, and blocking the large entrances with heavy pallets. They also had a backup
generator that ran on natural gas. When the management opened the store after Hurricane
Ike, there was only a little bit of damage. It was one of the few places in Galveston where
people could find food and essential provisions after the storm.
In order to continue electricity service, backup generators were brought in as the
gas supply was disrupted. The company also made arrangements to have the store run by
managers brought in from other stores, along with water and emergency supplies.
Perishable goods were not able to be kept due to the lack of consistent power. While it
was costly for Kroger to open, the commitment from senior management and employees
was to be there for the community at its time of greatest need. The mayor and other
officials assisted the staff by providing quick access to the store in order to help restore
the community.
The Galveston County Daily News, the oldest newspaper in Texas, suffered a
direct hit from Hurricane Ike, when the eye of the storm passed over the Galveston Island
at 2 a.m. on September 13, 2008. As the 110 mph winds, storm surge and rain invaded
the newspaper’s office building, their backup gas-powered generator failed. Reporters
worked out of emergency operation centers using cell phones and air cards to
communicate. Located behind the seawall, the newspaper had undertaken preparedness
and business continuity planning ahead of time, including significant reinforcement of the
building. Preparations also included food, water, and necessities for staff to remain,
sending printing and distribution functions to an alternate location.
In June 2008, the City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, was affected by an unprecedented
flood, as the Cedar River crested 111 /2 feet higher than any previous flood and caused
more than $6 billion in damages. The flood displaced 310 city facilities and devastated
more than 7000 properties, including more than 5000 homes (City of Cedar Rapids,
2011). However, the city responded quickly; within 4 days, it had organized three open
houses, which were attended by 2680 persons. They decided not only to recover the city
from the flood, but to move toward building a greater community for the next generation.
In conjunction with the Sasaki Associates, a planning and design firm based in
Watertown, Massachusetts, the city developed the River Corridor Redevelopment Plan,
which was implemented in two phases. Phase One was a fourmonth-long public process
to develop a flood-management strategy. The collaborative planning process included
community members, multiple city departments, the Cedar Rapids City Council, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), FEMA, Linn County officials, the Cedar Rapids
Downtown District, and the Cedar Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce.
Phase Two of the project focused on creating plans for reinvestment in the flood-
affected neighborhoods called the Neighborhood Planning Process. In this phase, the
community was able to create a plan for 10 neighborhoods in just four months. By the
end of the process, a Neighborhood Reinvestment Action Plan was adopted to guide
reinvestment over the next 1015 years. The River Corridor Redevelopment Plan also
included flood management strategy tactics (see Figure 12.4), a community process to
prioritize the replacement of flood-damaged facilities, a parks and recreation master plan
to integrate the new 220-acre floodplain greenway, and an energy management plan to
reduce municipal energy use and promote efficiency among many others. In 2011, the
City of Cedar Rapids River Corridor Redevelopment Plan received the 2011 National
Planning Excellence Award for Best Practices in Hazard Mitigation and Disaster
Planning by the American Planning Association.
E. Shelter Etowah Program, Etowah County, Alabama
Etowah County, located in northeast Alabama, is vulnerable to tornadoes and
other severe weather events. The area was heavily affected from the tornado outbreak on
April 27, 2011, as 62 tornadoes ravaged the state of Alabama. Appointed by Robert
Bentley, governor of Alabama, the Tornado Recovery Action Council (TRAC) published
a report on tornado damage in 2011, and one of its major findings was that people
generally do not know where to go when severe weather approaches. In response to the
2011 tornado event and the governor’s report, Etowah County emergency management
agency (EMA), in collaboration with local businesses, community centers, public
buildings and churches, started the Shelter Etowah program to provide residents with
specific information on places of refuge (shelters) within 5 miles of every community in
the county.
Since the inception of Shelter Etowah, 13 organizations have enrolled. In the
event of a direct strike, the EMA has an agreement with the American Red Cross to
transition the individuals located in those places of refuge to mass care shelters (Bryant et
al., 2014). When shelters are open during severe weather emergencies, citizens are
notified through social media, United Way 211, and Nixle, a company that offers
notification services. They can also check the status of all county shelters through the
Shelter Etowah website. The Department of Emergency Management at Jacksonville
State University created mobile applications (iOS and Android) for the Shelter Etowah
program so that Etowah County citizens can more quickly access shelter information and
status using cell or smart phones.
The Shelter Etowah app represents a cutting-edge tool in disaster preparedness
and response, leveraging technology to enhance the accessibility and effectiveness of
sheltering services for residents in Etowah County and beyond. At its core, the app
harnesses the power of global positioning satellite (GPS) features to provide users with
real-time navigation assistance, enabling them to swiftly and safely navigate to the
nearest shelter from their current locations.
The integration of GPS functionality into the Shelter Etowah app offers users a
seamless and intuitive way to access vital information during emergencies, eliminating
the guesswork and uncertainty associated with locating shelters in unfamiliar
surroundings. With just a few taps on their smartphones, users can pinpoint their precise
location and receive step-by-step directions to the nearest shelter, ensuring timely access
to essential resources and support. In addition to its navigation capabilities, the Shelter
Etowah app offers a convenient and efficient means of communication with shelter
facilities. Through one-touch functionality, users can initiate calls directly to shelters,
facilitating seamless coordination and communication in times of need. This feature
enables users to quickly connect with shelter staff, inquire about availability and capacity,
and receive essential guidance and assistance, thereby enhancing the overall effectiveness
and responsiveness of sheltering services.
By combining GPS navigation features with direct communication capabilities,
the Shelter Etowah app empowers users to take proactive measures to ensure their safety
and well-being during emergencies. Whether seeking refuge from severe weather events,
natural disasters, or other crises, users can rely on the app to provide them with the
information and support they need to make informed decisions and access critical
resources. Moreover, the user-friendly interface and intuitive design of the Shelter
Etowah app make it accessible to individuals of all ages and backgrounds, enhancing its
reach and impact within the community. By leveraging the ubiquity of smartphones and
mobile technology, the app serves as a powerful tool for promoting disaster preparedness
and resilience, fostering a culture of proactive planning and community engagement.
The accolades bestowed upon the Shelter Etowah program underscore its
exemplary achievements in disaster mitigation and innovation, earning recognition from
esteemed organizations such as the Alabama Association of Emergency Managers
(AAEM) and the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM). These
prestigious awards, including the Large County Mitigation Award from AAEM and the
2014 Technology and Innovation Award from IAEM in the Division Two category, serve
as testament to the program's outstanding contributions to community resilience and
emergency preparedness.
The Shelter Etowah program's success lies in its innovative approach to disaster
mitigation, which combines cutting-edge technology, community engagement, and
strategic partnerships to enhance sheltering capabilities and mitigate the impacts of
natural disasters and emergencies. By leveraging state-of-the-art shelter management
systems, advanced communication tools, and comprehensive training programs, the
program has revolutionized the way shelters are operated and managed, ensuring the
safety and well-being of residents during times of crisis. The program's recognition by
AAEM and IAEM reflects its effectiveness in achieving its objectives and serving as a
model for excellence in disaster mitigation and preparedness.
The prestigious awards bestowed upon the Shelter Etowah program serve as a
testament to its exemplary achievements and contributions to the field of emergency
management. These accolades not only recognize the program's innovative use of
technology but also underscore its profound impact on enhancing community resilience
and advancing best practices in disaster preparedness and response. The innovative use of
technology by the Shelter Etowah program has been a key driver of its success and
recognition within the emergency management community. By leveraging cutting-edge
tools and platforms, such as the Shelter Etowah app with GPS navigation features and
direct communication capabilities, the program has revolutionized the way sheltering
services are delivered and accessed by residents. This innovative approach has not only
enhanced the efficiency and effectiveness of shelter operations but has also set a new
standard for leveraging technology to address critical needs during emergencies.
Furthermore, the Shelter Etowah program's impact on enhancing community
resilience cannot be overstated. By providing residents with accessible and reliable
sheltering services, the program has played a vital role in strengthening the community's
capacity to withstand and recover from disasters. Through its proactive efforts to engage
and empower residents, raise awareness about sheltering options, and promote disaster
preparedness, the program has fostered a culture of resilience that extends beyond
emergency response to encompass proactive planning and community collaboration.
Moreover, the Shelter Etowah program's commitment to advancing best practices in
emergency management has been recognized and lauded by industry peers and
stakeholders.
By adhering to high standards of excellence, embracing innovation, and fostering
collaboration with partners and stakeholders, the Shelter Etowah program has not only
achieved remarkable success but has also set a benchmark for excellence in disaster
mitigation and preparedness. The program's commitment to excellence is reflected in its
rigorous adherence to best practices and industry standards. From the development of
robust sheltering protocols to the implementation of cutting-edge technologies, every
aspect of the program is guided by a commitment to quality and continuous
improvement. This unwavering dedication to excellence has earned the program
widespread recognition and acclaim within the emergency management community.
Innovation lies at the heart of the Shelter Etowah program, driving its evolution and
shaping its approach to disaster mitigation and preparedness. By embracing new
technologies, methodologies, and approaches, the program has continually pushed the
boundaries of what is possible in emergency management. Whether through the
development of the Shelter Etowah app with GPS navigation features or the
implementation of advanced shelter management systems, the program has demonstrated
a willingness to embrace innovation as a catalyst for positive change.
Collaboration has been instrumental in the success of the Shelter Etowah
program, fostering partnerships and alliances that have strengthened its impact and reach.
By working closely with government agencies, non-profit organizations, community
groups, and other stakeholders, the program has leveraged the collective expertise and
resources of diverse partners to achieve shared goals. This collaborative approach has
enabled the program to leverage complementary strengths, address complex challenges,
and maximize its effectiveness in serving the community. Moreover, the Shelter Etowah
program has not only set a benchmark for excellence but has also inspired others to strive
for similar levels of achievement in disaster mitigation and preparedness. Through its
leadership, innovation, and commitment to collaboration, the program has raised the bar
for emergency management practices and set a shining example for others to follow.
The success of the Shelter Etowah program has reverberated far beyond its own
community, inspiring other jurisdictions across the nation to replicate its innovative
model and adopt similar approaches to sheltering and emergency management. This
ripple effect has led to broader adoption of innovative practices and enhanced
collaboration among emergency management agencies, resulting in a collective effort to
strengthen community resilience and improve disaster preparedness nationwide. The
Shelter Etowah program's impact extends beyond its immediate reach, serving as a
beacon of inspiration and a catalyst for change in the field of emergency management. By
demonstrating the effectiveness of its approach and sharing best practices with other
jurisdictions, the program has sparked a wave of interest and enthusiasm for adopting
similar strategies to enhance sheltering services and response capabilities.
One of the key factors driving the replication of the Shelter Etowah model is its
proven track record of success and recognition by industry peers and stakeholders. The
program's receipt of prestigious awards and accolades, such as the Large County
Mitigation Award from the Alabama Association of Emergency Managers (AAEM) and
the Technology and Innovation Award from the International Association of Emergency
Managers (IAEM), has validated its effectiveness and demonstrated its potential to make
a positive impact on community resilience. Moreover, the Shelter Etowah program has
actively promoted knowledge sharing and collaboration among emergency management
agencies through workshops, conferences, and outreach initiatives. By showcasing its
achievements, sharing lessons learned, and providing guidance on implementation, the
program has facilitated the replication of its model in other jurisdictions and fostered a
culture of innovation and excellence in emergency management.
As a result of these efforts, numerous communities across the nation have
embraced the Shelter Etowah model and implemented similar programs to enhance their
sheltering and emergency management capabilities. From large urban centers to rural
counties, jurisdictions of all sizes and demographics have been inspired to adopt
innovative approaches and leverage technology to improve disaster preparedness,
response, and recovery efforts.
In conclusion, the prestigious awards received by the Shelter Etowah program
serve as a testament to its remarkable achievements and leadership in the field of
emergency management. Through its innovative use of technology, its impact on
enhancing community resilience, and its commitment to advancing best practices, the
program has made invaluable contributions to safeguarding lives and strengthening
communities in the face of disasters. As a beacon of excellence and inspiration, the
program continues to set new standards and empower communities to build a safer, more
resilient future for all.
Furthermore, the success of the Shelter Etowah program has inspired other
jurisdictions to replicate its model, demonstrating its broader influence and significance
within the emergency management community. Madison County, Alabama's recent
adoption of a similar program for its residents exemplifies the program's ripple effect, as
other communities recognize the value and effectiveness of its approach to disaster
mitigation and shelter management. In essence, the Shelter Etowah program stands as a
shining example of effective disaster mitigation and innovation, earning well-deserved
recognition from industry peers and inspiring emulation from other jurisdictions.
Through its continued success and expansion, the program is making invaluable
contributions to enhancing community resilience and ensuring the safety and well-being
of residents in the face of emergencies.
F. Putting Mitigation Best Practices Into A Plan
In 2010, FEMA published a report called Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best
Practices into Planning, in collaboration with the American Planning Association. The
report highlighted a number of efforts around the country to incorporate mitigation best
practices into concrete plans. The following sections give summaries of six case studies
from the FEMA report representing large, medium, and small jurisdictions. Lee County
in Florida created a joint planning effort in 2007 with its five municipalities as a model
for regional coordination. It is a model for incorporating mitigation into comprehensive
planning. The five municipalities are Fort Myers, Fort Myers Beach, Sanibel, Cape Coral,
and Bonita Springs. Lee County is a costal, low-lying county facing the Gulf of Mexico.
It routinely encounters hurricanes, flooding, wildfires, tornadoes, thunderstorms, and
flooding. With planning conducted by the Lee County Disaster Advisory Council,
officials developed a prioritized list to address population growth, land use and
acquisition, economic growth, and investment in physical and social infrastructure.
The mitigation measures implemented by Lee County demonstrate a proactive
and comprehensive approach to reducing the risks posed by natural hazards, particularly
those associated with coastal areas. By focusing on conservation and coastal
management, restricting new development, enhancing evacuations and sheltering
capabilities, floodproofing utilities, and addressing repetitive loss structures, the county
has prioritized resilience and sustainability in the face of potential disasters. Conservation
and coastal management initiatives play a central role in Lee County's mitigation efforts,
recognizing the importance of preserving natural ecosystems and protecting coastal
resources. By safeguarding wetlands, dunes, and other natural buffers, the county helps
mitigate the impacts of storms, erosion, and sea-level rise, while also preserving
biodiversity and enhancing ecological resilience.
Restricting new development in hazard-prone areas is another key strategy
employed by Lee County to reduce vulnerability to natural hazards. By implementing
land use regulations, zoning ordinances, and building codes that limit development in
high-risk zones, the county minimizes exposure to flood, wind, and other hazards,
thereby reducing the potential for property damage and loss of life. Improving
evacuations and sheltering capabilities is essential for ensuring the safety and well-being
of residents during emergencies. Lee County's mitigation measures focus on enhancing
evacuation routes, evacuation shelters, and emergency communication systems to
facilitate timely and orderly evacuations in the event of hurricanes, storm surges, or other
disasters. By investing in infrastructure upgrades and public education campaigns, the
county aims to minimize the risks associated with evacuations and ensure that residents
have access to safe and reliable sheltering options.
Floodproofing utilities and addressing repetitive loss structures are critical
components of Lee County's mitigation strategy, particularly in flood-prone areas. By
retrofitting infrastructure such as wastewater treatment plants, electrical substations, and
water supply facilities to withstand flooding, the county reduces the risk of service
disruptions and environmental contamination during floods. Additionally, by
incentivizing or requiring the elevation, relocation, or floodproofing of repetitive loss
structures, the county helps mitigate the financial and social impacts of recurring flood
damage on property owners and communities. Overall, the mitigation measures
implemented by Lee County reflect a proactive and multi-faceted approach to reducing
vulnerability to natural hazards and enhancing community resilience. By integrating
conservation, land use planning, infrastructure improvements, and regulatory measures,
the county strives to create a safer, more sustainable environment for its residents now
and in the future.
Hazards in Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, South Carolina, include flood,
hurricanes, tropical storms, winter storms, thunderstorms, tornadoes, earthquakes,
drought, and wildfires. As a result, Charlotte-Mecklenburg officials and stakeholders
collaborated to mitigate the impacts of those hazards. Their focus included initiatives to
identify both current and future hazard vulnerability, strong collaborative partnerships to
solve hazard mitigation problems, and integrate hazard mitigation planning into other
objectives, such as water-quality protection, parks and recreation planning, and
comprehensive planning policy. Due to Hurricanes Bertha and Fran in 1996, their goal
has been to integrate hazard mitigation into day-to-day decision making. They developed
watershed-based HM plans, identifying flood-prone properties that were then targeted for
acquisition and relocation using grant money.
The county made significant investment in 100-year FEMA floodplain maps and
future floodplain maps due to development. They have strong floodplain development
ordinances with restrictions on building or renovations in floodplains. Since this would
affect development, stakeholders were asked to discuss and put together a solution
including developers, environmentalists, representatives of community organizations,
planners, engineers, county commissioners, and city officials and their staffs. Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Storm Water Services established its Floodplain Buyout Program as part of
its hazard-mitigation-planning process, which included its floodplain remapping
initiative. Property owners could sell their homes and businesses to the county if their
property was a repeat victim of flooding. Charlotte-Mecklenburg was one of the earliest
communities in the United States to quantify and map flood elevations and floodplain
boundaries based on “buildout land-use” conditions. It is a vanguard community in the
effort to mitigate the impacts of flooding by educating, involving, and assisting
constituents in reshaping settlement patterns to avoid highrisk flood zones.
Securing buy-in for its future floodplain-remapping program among stakeholders
and elected officials was a pivotal achievement for Charlotte-Mecklenburg staff,
underscoring the importance of proactive engagement and collaboration in addressing
complex challenges such as flood hazards. Recognizing that developers, stakeholders,
and elected officials needed to personally recognize the flood hazard problem to fully
embrace the initiative, the staff embarked on a strategic and inclusive approach to garner
support and build consensus.
Central to the success of their efforts was the recognition that effective
communication and outreach were essential for fostering understanding and buy-in
among key stakeholders. By engaging in open and transparent dialogue, the staff sought
to educate stakeholders about the nature and scope of the flood hazard problem, as well
as the potential implications for the community's safety, resilience, and economic vitality.
Through targeted outreach efforts, including meetings, workshops, presentations, and
informational materials, they aimed to raise awareness and build a shared understanding
of the need for proactive floodplain remapping. Moreover, the staff recognized the
importance of tailoring their messaging and engagement strategies to resonate with the
interests and concerns of different stakeholders. By framing the floodplain-remapping
program as a proactive measure to enhance public safety, protect property values, and
promote sustainable development, they sought to align the initiative with the broader
goals and priorities of stakeholders and elected officials. Emphasizing the potential
benefits of accurate floodplain mapping, such as improved risk assessment, flood
insurance affordability, and infrastructure planning, helped to garner support and build
momentum for the program.
In addition to outreach and communication efforts, the staff actively solicited
feedback and input from stakeholders throughout the planning process. By inviting
participation in the decision-making process and incorporating stakeholders' perspectives
and concerns into the program design, they fostered a sense of ownership and investment
in the initiative. This collaborative approach not only strengthened relationships with
stakeholders but also enhanced the program's credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of
elected officials and the community at large. Ultimately, the successful securing of buy-in
for the future floodplain-remapping program by Charlotte-Mecklenburg staff
demonstrates the power of proactive engagement, communication, and collaboration in
addressing complex challenges. By empowering stakeholders to recognize the flood
hazard problem for themselves and inviting their participation in the solution, the staff
laid the foundation for a collective effort to enhance floodplain management and
resilience in the community.
Roseville is a rapidly expanding suburb of Sacramento, California. Due to a
massive railroad tanker explosion in 1973, Roseville officials rank humaninduced events
as a top hazard due to a major explosion and chemicalplume release in the rail yards in
April 1973. However, their biggest mitigation success was in handling flooding. After a
significant flood event in 1986, many steps were taken for flood control improvements,
including such things are new construction and land use restrictions, structural
emplacements for overland release for floodwaters, elevation of new homes, and buy-out
initiatives for vulnerable properties. Roseville also participates fully in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). Their hazard mitigation plan (HMP) is linked to the general
safety plan, including planning for vulnerable populations and prioritization of actions.
They have established a multistakeholder steering committee, including large business
and community organizations.
The ongoing planning process for floodplain management in Charlotte-
Mecklenburg demonstrates a commitment to adaptability, accountability, and continuous
improvement in addressing the dynamic challenges posed by flood hazards. Through
regular 5-year comprehensive reviews and updates to the plan, the community remains
vigilant in ensuring compliance with regulations and advancing development practices
for the common good. These periodic reviews serve as critical milestones in the evolution
of the floodplain management plan, providing opportunities to assess progress, identify
emerging issues, and recalibrate strategies in response to changing conditions. By
conducting comprehensive evaluations of the plan's effectiveness, stakeholders can gauge
the extent to which goals and objectives have been achieved, evaluate the impact of
implemented measures, and identify areas for improvement.
A key focus of these reviews is compliance with regulatory requirements and
standards governing floodplain management. By meticulously assessing adherence to
federal, state, and local regulations, Charlotte-Mecklenburg ensures that its floodplain
management practices align with best practices and legal mandates, thereby reducing
risks to public safety, protecting natural resources, and safeguarding property.
Furthermore, the comprehensive reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate the evolving
needs and priorities of the community and incorporate stakeholder feedback into the
planning process. By engaging with a diverse array of stakeholders, including residents,
businesses, environmental organizations, and governmental agencies, Charlotte-
Mecklenburg fosters inclusivity, transparency, and collaboration in decision-making,
ensuring that the plan reflects the interests and values of the community.
In addition to compliance, the updates to the plan also prioritize development for
the common good, emphasizing the importance of sustainable, resilient, and equitable
growth. By integrating principles of smart growth, green infrastructure, and climate
resilience into development practices, Charlotte-Mecklenburg seeks to enhance
community well-being, economic vitality, and environmental quality while mitigating the
impacts of flooding and other hazards. Overall, the 5-year comprehensive reviews and
updates to the floodplain management plan underscore Charlotte-Mecklenburg's
proactive and holistic approach to addressing flood hazards and promoting community
resilience. By embracing adaptability, accountability, and collaboration, the community
ensures that its floodplain management efforts remain responsive to evolving challenges
and aligned with the shared values and aspirations of its residents.
Roseville represents the best convergence of local capacity to build and sustain
disaster resilience through the support of state and federal laws and requirements.
California has state mandates aimed at the local level. The community’s comprehensive
general plan provides a base for everaging federal Community Rating System (CRS)
benefits and FEMA hazard mitigation assistance (HMA) financial incentives to
accomplish objectives of hazard mitigation. They have shown strong commitment and
collaboration in systematically setting priorities for mitigation actions and
implementation to achieve a better future.
Berkeley is an older city in the San Francisco Bay Area and home to one of the
campuses of the University of California. It has a history of earthquakes and wildfires.
Berkeley officials have involved community stakeholders and completed seismic
retrofitting of many established public buildings, improved building codes, incentives for
residential retrofitting, and disaster preparedness training programs for college student
housing off campus. Berkeley’s significant achievements include strengthening older,
seismically vulnerable public and private structures (Figure 12.6). It has encouraged
property owners to retrofit most private buildings through tax incentives. Between 1992
and 1999, approximately $1.1 million in fees were waived for 4100 seismic retrofitting
permits.
The town of Bourne, Massachusetts, is a waterfront community of fewer than
20,000 people adjacent to Buzzards Bay on the Atlantic Ocean. Hazards include
hurricanes, coastal storms, and erosion, flooding, and high tides from storm surge.
Massachusetts does not have state-level hazard planning requirements, but the
commonwealth does encourage communities to create their own HMPs. It also does not
have county governments. Localities use either regional planning groups or consultants to
devise plans. In 2004, the Cape Cod Commission (CCC), the area’s regional planning and
land-use regulatory agency, worked with emergency managers within a 15-town region to
produce the 2004 Cape Cod Emergency Preparedness Handbook. This effort entailed
each town creating its own plan. The town of Bourne formed a committee that included a
town planner, an engineer, and a building inspector. Community groups, local businesses,
and media were also included in the town’s 27-member committee. Their primary focus
included future and current development designed to minimize flood hazards, address the
effects of severe weather damage, rising sea level, storm erosion, and revision of
floodplain zoning. The town of Bourne has been addressing the reinvestment needs of the
flood-prone downtown area. The architects used a flood hazard mitigation study to revise
their master plan for the project and work creatively with the new floodplain zoning
regulations to design innovative solutions that included multilevel, mixed- use buildings.
Morgan County is located 30 miles to the southwest of Salt Lake City with a
population of approximately 10,000 people. Hazards include earthquakes, flooding,
wildfire, and landslides. Their planning group includes four people with skills in code
enforcement, geographic information systems (GISs), planning, and administration. They
invite the public to all their meetings to get citizen buy-in for their initiatives. Their focus
has been on quality of life, esthetics through the construction of riparian corridors (plants
along a waterway), and implementing heir policies into action. They are managing
development by encouraging farming and vegetation growth, while restricting
development, especially on hillsides. Additionally, collaborative monthly multiple county
agency meetings are conducted to coordinate fire and building code requirements,
development, and public safety input. They have also identified vulnerable areas that now
have rules restricting land use.
G. Best Practices of Mitigation In Other Countries
Maldives, a small island nation located in the central Indian Ocean, is highly
vulnerable to climate change and associated impacts such as sea-level rise (SLR). The
country consists of more than 1000 small, low-lying coral reef islands encompassing an
area of about 35,000 square miles (90,000 sq. kilometers). However, more than 85% of
Maldives is estimated to be less than 1.5 meters above mean sea level; thus, Maldives is
prone to both short-term changes in sea level (e.g., flooding produced by storms), as well
as long-term SLR. In addition, 70% of the nation’s critical infrastructure is within 100
meters of the coastline, including 44% of the settlements on all islands (World Bank,
2014). The vulnerability of Maldives was evident during a massive Indian Ocean tsunami
that struck in 2004 and caused $470 million worth of damage, which was 62% of the
country’s total gross domestic product (GDP) for that year. The tsunami destroyed a
number of small islands that were highly exposed, with little or no coastal protection. In
response, the government of Maldives initiated the Safe Island Programme (SIP) concept
to reduce the social, economic, and environmental vulnerability of its widely dispersed
population across the islands and to encourage people to move to larger islands. The
long-term objective of the SIP concept is to “reduce the number of inhabited islands and
consolidate the population in fewer settlements across an identified number of islands”.
he islands selected for the SIP would have improved housing, infrastructure,
social services, communication and transportation facilities, and appropriate mitigation
measures for coastal hazards, including adequate preparedness for emergencies and
disasters. The islands would also have additional stocks of food, essential supplies, and
drinking water. Figure 12.9 shows the cross section of an island with enhanced mitigation
features where elevated areas can be used for emergency evacuation schools and public
buildings. Initially, 10 islands in the Maldives were short-listed for development as safe
islands where detailed risk assessments were undertaken in three phases to recommend
specific mitigation options beginning in January 2007. In phase 1, hazard assessments
were conducted for tsunamis, high tides, windstorms, heavy rainfall, storm surges,
droughts, and earthquakes, with return periods of 25, 50, and 100 years for the safe
islands.
The assessments also examined the effects of coastal erosion and included the
mapping of coastal vegetation. The exposure of buildings and infrastructure to the
selected hazards was calculated, and safe buildings were identified. It also determined the
capacity of safe buildings to serve as potential shelters during emergencies and identified
public structures that required retrofitting. In phase 2 of the detailed risk assessment,
hazard data from phase 1 were used to determine the vulnerability of fishery, tourism,
agriculture, small business, and home-based industries. This included a comparative
analysis of livelihood opportunities and relocation costs since the SIP program requires
relocating people. Also, a social assessment was conducted to incorporate community
input into the program. In the third and final phase, all information from phases 1 and 2
was integrated, and recommendations made for adopting island-specific hazard
mitigation measures based on a benefit-cost analysis (BCA).
The SIP program, which is still ongoing, has contributed significantly to a number
of disaster risk reduction measures in the Maldives. The Strategic National Action Plan
(2011), endorsed by the government, was built on the recommendations of the risk
information and BCA of the SIP program. The risk information has also helped develop
national building codes, a national training program, and a national public awareness
campaign for disaster risk reduction, early warnings, and response actions. Started in
2009, an awareness campaign called Rakkaavethibiyya— Dhivehiraajje (“Be Aware—Be
Prepared”) was the nation’s first public awareness campaign addressing disaster risk; it
was initiated by the National Disaster Management Centre and Maldives Meteorological
Service in partnership with the UN Development Programme.
Canada is looking at the use of adaptation to address climate change issues. Since
mitigation for climate change would be related to the reduction or elimination of
greenhouse gases, adaptation is the adjustment necessary to respond to potential or actual
climate change events. Since 1998, Canada has experienced some of the warmest years
on record (Feltmate & Thistlethwaite, n.d.). Extreme weather events are occurring more
frequently, as evidenced by excessive precipitation and long dry spells. The Climate
Change Adaptation Project (CCAP) was designed to identify and implement practical,
meaningful, and cost-effective adaptation solutions to meet the challenging impacts of
climate change in Canada. The goal of the project is for Canadians to be better prepared
to face and withstand severe weather conditions that will affect drinking and irrigation
water, transportation routes, utility usage, and other human needs.
In terms of city infrastructure, climate change effects have already raised concerns
over the magnitude, seriousness, and implications of their impact on existing
infrastructure. Adaptation solutions include evaluating existing infrastructure for its
ability to withstand more severe weather while structures are aging, shortening their
useful life; and conducting vulnerability/risk assessments to define risks and determine
necessary upgrades or replacement needs. Finally, project leaders have identified a need
for adaptation protocols to be incorporated into city planning policy. The main challenges
for adapting city infrastructure to a changing climate include uncertainty about the rate of
climate change, unknown risks of climate change impacts, and developing effective
knowledge and training to meet changing needs. In terms of biodiversity, natural
ecosystems may be disrupted, with both plants and animals being unable to migrate or
adapt to weather changes. Invasive species may take over where native species thrived.
Habitat corridors and increasing habitat density are being considered, along with new
ways to manage negative effects and invasive species.
The aboriginal, or native, communities will be significantly affected as well, due
to their dependency on the land. Many lack insurance coverage, which limits their ability
to rebound from a disaster event affecting their personal property. New building codes
and possible relocation is being considered. This is being done in conjunction with
aboriginal community leaders. Renewable energy sources need to take the place of
dieseldependent processes, which further contributes to greenhouse gases, exacerbating
the problem. Agriculture is also very sensitive to climate change. However, many in the
agriculture community do not believe in climate change or the potential impacts on
farming. Their buy-in is essential. So educational programs that emphasize the effects of
climate adaptation and its relevant attributes should promote understanding.
It is important that communities ensure the safety of their local schools and public
buildings, as many people, including children, gather in those facilities often during
earthquake and severe weather events. The Philippines’s National Capital Region, Metro
Manila, has made an exemplary effort to prepare for and respond to disasters, initiating
the Seismic Retrofit Program to strengthen its public school buildings to withstand
earthquakes, as well as other natural hazards. The Philippines, an island nation in the
western Pacific Ocean, is disasterprone and exposed to multiple hazards, such as
typhoons and earthquakes. In October 15, 2013, a 7.2-magnitude earthquake struck Bohol
province, killing about 222 people and damaging more than 73,000 structures (National
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council, 2013). About a month later, Super
Typhoon Yolanda (also known as Typhoon Haiyan) caused catastrophic destruction in
the islands. According to the Metro Manila Earthquake Impact Reduction (MMEIRS)
study in 2004, 10% of the public schools in Metro Manila would incur heavy damage or
collapse from a magnitude 7.2 earthquake in the West Valley Fault System (Figure
12.10), and 210,000 students would be affected. The study also found that over 50% of
the total public school buildings in the region are at high risk from earthquakes.
Japan is highly vulnerable to earthquakes and earthquake-associated tsunamis.
The 2011 Great T¯ohoku Earthquake (9.0 magnitude) was the most powerful earthquake
ever recorded in Japan; it also triggered powerful tsunami waves up to 40.5 meters (133
feet). Tokyo Gas is a private company that supplies natural gas to 10 million customers in
Tokyo and seven surrounding prefectures in the capital region. The company has adopted
extensive earthquake disaster management policies to ensure continuous supply for its 10
million customers, as well as reliable and safe access to gas service.
While natural gas is a clean fuel, disruption of pipelines during an earthquake not
only limits fuel for heating and cooking, it poses a major risk of fires and explosions.
Tokyo Gas has implemented several structural and nonstructural measures to reduce
damages and improve safety. In terms of structural measures, the company ensures that
the facilities and equipment used in the manufacture and delivery of natural gas are of
solid quality and the structures are able to withstand even a massive earthquake. As for
nonstructural measures, the company conducts annual disaster drills for its employees,
participates in government disaster drills, and collaborates with partners and other gas
companies for large-scale events. The company addresses three key phases in its
earthquake management policies: prevention, emergency, and restoration. The prevention
policies ensure a continued supply of gas to the customers even during a disaster such as
an earthquake; the emergency policies are in place to prevent secondary disasters when
an earthquake strikes; and the restoration policies exist to restore service quickly if there
is an interruption. By creating such an extensive system, along with adopting structural
and nonstructural mitigation measures, Tokyo Gas has been very successful in their
efforts to reduce the impact of disasters on its 10 million customers.
Australia has suffered about 265 disasters in the past 30 years from various types
of hazard events that include floods, storms, tropical cyclones, droughts, and fires
(National Advisory Committee for Animals in Emergencies, n.d.). After determining that
over half of Australians own pets and looking at the history of previous disasters, it was
concluded that people will resist evacuating and will return into harm’s way to save their
animals. Animals enhance human health and well-being and provide economic value.
Loss of livestock is not only financial; farming communities also suffer psychologically
from the loss of their livestock and their livelihood. These animal-related behaviors
reinforce the need to account for animals (companion animals and livestock) in order to
ensure the safety of people in times of disaster. In 2012, the World Society for the
Protection of Animals and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry
Australian Animal Welfare Strategy cohosted a workshop called “Building Resilience:
Animals and Communities Coping in Emergencies,” in which over 50 stakeholders
participated. The workshop participants reviewed guidelines to address animal needs.
Then the National Advisory Committee for Animals in Emergencies was established to
address the animal needs in Australia.
Bangladesh, in South Asia, is a disaster-prone country, and tropical cyclones
present the most serious hazard in the coastal areas. The world’s deadliest cyclone
occurred in Bangladesh in 1970, which killed approximately 300,000 to 500,000 people.
In 1991, a category 5 storm killed about 140,000 people. After this deadly event,
Bangladesh started the Multipurpose Cyclone Shelter Programme (MCSP) in the coastal
districts, which received worldwide attention. Cyclone shelters are concrete buildings
where the ground floor is kept open for the free flow of tidal surges (Figure 12.11). The
structural design is prepared in such a way so that it can withstand the strong wind of
storms. When specific warnings for cyclone and tidal surges are announced by the
authorities, the shelters are opened for local communities and cattle. During the normal
period, the shelters are used as schools/education centers, office, health, or community
centers.
There are currently 2583 cyclone shelters located in 16 coastal districts of
Bangladesh (CEGIS, 2009). Figure 12.12 shows the location of these cyclone shelters.
Since 1991, casualties from cyclones have been greatly reduced due to the
implementation of cyclone shelters, along with other mitigation and preparedness
measures. For instance, Cyclone Sidr (category 5) in 2007 and Cyclone Aila (category 1)
in 2009 killed 3406 and 190 people, respectively. Although cyclone shelters are useful,
the number of cyclone shelters is insufficient compared to coastal populations. The
capacity of the 2583 cyclone shelters is approximately 2.8 million people, which is only
about 7.3% of the total coastal population.
