Disaster Resiliency

Interdisciplinary Perspectives

Naim Kapucu, Christopher V. Hawkins, Fernando I. Rivera, Naim Kapucu, Christopher V. Hawkins, Fernando I. Rivera

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781136239953
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politique et relations internationales
• Subtopic: Politique

Natural disasters in recent years have brought the study of disaster resiliency to the forefront. The importance of community preparedness and sustainability has been underscored by such calamities as Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the Japanese tsunami in 2011. Natural disasters will inevitably continue to occur, but by understanding the concept of resiliency as well as the factors that lead to it, communities can minimize their vulnerabilities and increase their resilience.

In this volume, editors Naim Kapucu, Christopher V. Hawkins, and Fernando I. Rivera gather an impressive array of scholars to provide a much needed re-think to the topic disaster resiliency. Previous research on the subject has mainly focused on case studies, but this book offers a more systematic and empirical assessment of resiliency, while at the same time delving into new areas of exploration, including vulnerabilities of mobile home parks, the importance of asset mapping, and the differences between rural and urban locations. Employing a variety of statistical techniques and applying these to disasters in the United States and worldwide, this book examines resiliency through comparative methods which examine public management and policy, community planning and development, and, on the individual level, the ways in which culture, socio-economic status, and social networks contribute to resiliency. The analyses drawn will lead to the development of strategies for community preparation, response, and recovery to natural disasters.

Combining the concept of resiliency, the factors that most account for the resiliency of communities, and the various policies and government operations that can be developed to increase the sustainability of communities in face of disasters, the editors and contributors have assembled an essential resource to scholars in emergency planning, management, and policy, as well as upper-level students studying disaster management and policy.

1 Disaster Resiliency

Interdisciplinary Perspectives

Naim Kapucu, Christopher V. Hawkins, and Fernando Rivera

Communities in the United States and abroad experience a variety of natural disasters including droughts, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes among others. Disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the four hurricanes that damaged portions of Florida within a six-week span in 2004, and an earthquake and tsunami in Japan in 2011, are unfortunate reminders of the vulnerability of communities to natural disasters. These events, like many others, illustrate how disasters can impact communities and individuals, and disrupt socio-technical systems and community functions. Threat of disasters will continue, but their consequences can be minimized if communities and people reduce their vulnerabilities and increase their resilience.

There tends to be an imbalance between rural and urban communities with respect to their capacity to manage disasters. Vulnerable populations and infrastructure of rural areas, an undiversified economic base in many instances, and the geographic dissimilarities with urban areas produce artificial boundaries in communication and coordination among emergency magement organizations. Although conceptual models of resilient communities and regions have been developed, accurate measurement that informs practice and basic research and that provides a foundation for advancing the field of emergency management, particularly in rural areas, is needed. This book is a modest contribution to this end.

DISASTER RESILIENCY

The focal point of our interdisciplinary approach is the four elements common to traditional models of the emergency management process: (1) prevention/mitigation, (2) preparedness, (3) response, and (4) recovery. Mitigation represents activities that prevent a disaster, reduce the chance of it occurring, or reduce its damaging effects. Preparedness represents those actions taken before impact, including plans and preparations for disaster. Response refers to actions taken during the initial impact of a disaster to save lives and prevent further property damage. Recovery includes actions taken after the initial impact, including those directed toward a return to normality (McEntire, Myers, & Foss, 2003; McLoughlin, 1985; Tierney et al., 2001; Waugh, 2000; Tobin & Montz, 1997; Waugh & Tierney, 2007; Weichselgartner, 2001). Underlying each of these components is a “culture of preparedness”—a future-oriented approach towards planning for disasters and unexpected events (Kapucu, 2008b; Kapucu & Özerdem, 2012).

Our approach also emphasizes the multi-organizational and multi-jurisdictional planning processes in preparing for emergencies and crises. Although collaboration and coordination is one of the most important functions of managing crises and disasters, they create certain challenges, including developing effective channels of communication, working with different agencies that have multiple roles and responsibilities, and acquiring the necessary resources needed to properly prepare for a disaster.

In the following sections we discuss the components that comprise our interdisciplinary approach: public policy and management; planning and development; and behavioral and social networks.

PUBLIC POLICY AND MANAGEMENT

The public policy and management perspective focuses on the policy tools for effective management of planning and response networks and maintaining community partnerships. Public, private, and nonprofit sector organizations have always had a role in disaster management. Recently, the importance of non-governmental actors has been increasing in the disaster management system. Although in many cases the private sector supplies water, power, and communication in times of disasters, nonprofits often provide shelter to disaster victims, disaster relief in the form of food and water, man power for search and rescue efforts, and fund-raising (Rubin, 2007).

The importance of collaboration with the private and nonprofit sector extends beyond disaster conditions. For instance, supply and production chains, service delivery networks, and contract relationships flow within collaborative relationships. Nonprofits and other community organizations work in a similar fashion and they maintain their activities within a network of public-private-nonprofit agencies. They receive contracts from private and public agencies and serve individuals or other organizations (mostly nonprofits); all these actions are generated as a part of a network system, which oftentimes necessitates collaboration between partners (Kapucu, 2008a; Rubin, 2007).

The collaborative nature of the emergency management system is well understood at different levels of government. The roles and responsibilities of public and non-governmental actors are framed by federal legislation in the U.S. The Stafford Act, Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, Presidential Directives 5 and 8, Federal Response Plan, National Response Plan, and the National Response Framework are the foremost legislation and federal initiatives towards regulating emergency management systems in this context (NRC, 2010).

A challenge in developing resilient communities is not only recognizing and anticipating the scope of damages, but integrating multiple agencies, jurisdictions and stakeholder groups in a response to a disaster (Pelling, 2003; Ronan & Johnson, 2005). Hazard preparedness should include strong coordination across federal/central, state/province, and local agencies with clear lines of responsibility. Coordination is particularly important across jurisdictions because disasters do not confine themselves to political and administrative boundaries. Thus regionalism and associated intergovernmental cooperation is another key component in assessing vulnerability (Caruson & MacManus, 2008; Kapucu, 2008a). Due to the catastrophic nature of disasters, it has been imperative that cross-sector collaboration occurs in emergency management. Because no single agency or organization has all the resources needed in a response/recovery phase, creating these networks before a disaster is vital (Kapucu, 2007). Building relationships and collaborating with other agencies will increase networking and allow agencies to deal with multiple problems related to emergency management. Community response to a disaster or emergency can be successful if capacity building has taken place and the collaborating agencies have developed a shared vision, a common understanding of the problem, leadership skills, and sustainable community involvement (Beatley, 1998). For instance, the National Research Council (NRC) (2010) recognizes four principles of resiliency, which are: identifying and creating incentives; adopting an appropriate planning perspective; using decentralized partnerships; and allowing for multiple levels of engagement.

First, community collaborative networks have to deliver benefits to participants. Each participant’s expectations are different than the others. For instance a private company largely pursues incentives that will yield a higher return on investment, business continuity, and more accurate risk and benefit analysis based on enhanced trust. Nonprofits, on the other hand, are motivated by more efficient service delivery, increased income (and perhaps contracts), and capacity building. One critical challenge for community-based collaboration is that the benefits will not be visible for the partners in the near future, which may inhibit the willingness to participate (NRC, 2010).

Second, factors such as community priorities, vulnerabilities, and culture necessitate custom planning for each community. Because the needs of each community vary depending on the disaster cycle, NRC (2010) notes that a customized plan requires “systematic identification of the resources and strategies needed to accommodate land use planning, public preparedness education, and short- and long-term disaster recovery for likely scenarios” (43). Flexibility of the plans is critical because of the uncertainty created by disasters, yet flexibility should be built on strong and rooted relationships among partners; otherwise loosely connected organizations may not be able to manage a flexible plan because they cannot predict the behaviors of their peers.

Third, the structure of the collaboration has a critical influence on the success of the relationship. The nature of collaboration requires decentralized network relationships. For instance, the U.S. Coast Guard’s successful response to Hurricane Katrina is directly associated with its decentralized structure and knowledge about the communities they were serving. Finally, collaboration should exist not only at a single level but at all levels in accordance with the appropriateness of the participating agency. In other words, organizations are more likely to collaborate with each other if their goals and resources are appropriate for each other. An organization will build a relationship with others that can share the necessary knowledge and resources that it needs; otherwise, the relationship inevitably fades because it does not generate resources.

The system for risk interpretation, communication, and action requires significant collaboration and cohesion among the partners in the system. The framework for collaboration towards disaster resilience developed by NRC identifies five key premises: “1) disaster resilience correlates strongly with community resilience; 2) public private collaboration is based on relationships in which two or more private and public entities coordinate resources toward common objectives; 3) effective collaboration depends on a community engagement approach and 4) principles of comprehensive emergency management ideally guide resilience-focused collaboration” (NRC, 2010: 5). The model developed based on this framework integrates community participants (public, private, nonprofit organizations, volunteers, faith-based initiatives) and operations and processes (e.g., collaborative management, interorganizational networking) for creating synergy toward building disaster resiliency.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Planning and development represents the second perspective. An extensive literature in planning has emerged that focuses on changes in the built environment, particularly sprawl (e.g., the outward expansion of low-density commercial and residential development). Sprawl is especially relevant to hazards because development patterns consume land in areas that may not be suitable for development and alters environmental systems that increase the vulnerability of populations and property to hazards. Although sprawl remains an elusive concept and problems of accurate measurement persists, there is general agreement among scholars that land use patterns often used to describe sprawl produce negative externalities and are harmful to the environment. Fragmented open spaces, infringement of development on wetlands, and impervious surfaces contribute to the vulnerability of some hazards, such as flooding.

Communities can strengthen their resilience and reduce risks to their residents by using a suite of development management tools to mitigate hazards (Burby et al., 2000; Brody, Kang, & Bernhardt, 2010; Godschalk et al., 1999). Structural approaches have historically dominated flood mitigation in the U.S. (Birkland et al., 2003). They are oriented to modifying the built environment to mitigate flood damage, including levees, floodwalls, and fills (Alexander, 1993; Few, 2003). Structural measures, however, have been critiqued. Some suggest that flooding can exceed the capacity of a structure (Burby, French, & Cigler, 1985; Burby et al., 1999; Larson & Plasencia, 2001; Stein et al., 2000). Moreover, they are often neglected, leading to catastrophic events (Brody, Kang et al., 2010). In addition to having adverse environmental impacts on natural ecosystems and hydrology (Birkland et al., 2003; Abell, 2000), they may also bring a false sense of security (Dalton & Burby, 1994), are very expensive to construct and maintain (Stein et al., 2000), may also increase the velocity of water downstream by changing the natural floodplain (Birkland et al., 2003), and encourage development in inappropriate locations (Burby, 2006; Pielke, 1999; Tobin, 1995).

Non-structural measures provide alternatives to structural mechanisms. These approaches largely focus on land use planning, integrating mitigation into land development policies, and capital facilities policies (Burby et al., 1985, 1999; Godschalk, Brower, & Beatley, 1989; Brody et al., 2007; Burby, 1998; Burby et al., 2000; Brody, Groverb et al., 2010; Mileti, 1999). Non-structural measures seek to reduce vulnerability by directing land use away from hazardous areas, communicating mitigation information, protecting sensitive areas, and insurance programs that distribute risk. Non-structural measures are also seen as being able to achieve both mitigation and environmental and ecological goals (Birkland et al., 2003; Birkland & Waterman, 2008; Olschansky & Kartez, 1998). Alternative mechanisms, which are sometimes called low impact development, are seen as relatively cost effective and more suitable to land use that is increasingly diffuse in nature (Braden & Johnston, 2004; Marsalek & Chocat, 2002; Thurston, 2006; Thurston et al., 2003). Local governments have therefore turned to a variety of regulations and incentives to protect environmental resources and improve disaster resiliency (Bengston, Fletcher, & Nelson, 2003; Porter, 1997).

Studies have also shown that the risk of, and damage from, hazards are significantly reduced when appropriate land use planning and development oversight is performed, including monitoring efforts to ensure land use regulations are properly implemented (Burby, 2005, 2006; Burby, French, & Nelson, 1998; Nelson & French, 2002). From a preparedness and response perspective, planning can reduce vulnerability through targeted emergency management plans or though broader comprehensive plans that incorporate disaster preparation and response elements. Reviews of both approaches indicate that they have a positive effect in fostering the development of more rigorous hazard programs (Burby et al., 1999; Burby et al., 1998). Communities that invest the time to...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Foreword by Kathleen Tierney
• Foreword by Siva Sureshwaran
• Preface
• 1 Disaster Resiliency: Interdisciplinary Perspectives
• Part I Introduction to Conceptual Insights and Applications of Resilience
• Part II Taking Action in Uncertain Environments: Connecting Resilience to Hazards
• Part III Improving Community Resilience through Networks
• Appendices
• Bibliography
• List of Contributors
• Index