Minimizing the Impact of a Natural Disaster - The Risk Mitigation Phase - Research Paper Example

Minimizing the Impact of a Natural Disaster: The Risk Mitigation Phase When we hear the term Homeland Security, we often get the image of an agency that is tasked with the identification, disruption, and elimination of a terrorist threat. While counter terrorism is an important function of Homeland Security, the fact is that many more people are at risk, and will be harmed, by a natural disaster than a terrorist attack, and the economic losses will be far greater. This presents several problems to the various federal agencies involved in disaster planning and relief. The geographical size of the United States and the wide variety of weather and geological concerns make planning for a natural disaster at the federal level an extremely difficult task. While FEMA and other government agencies will aid in the response and recovery phases of the disaster, the planning and initial response will largely be a function of local officials. The need for response and recovery can be greatly reduced by adequate planning and risk mitigation. The emergency planning manager will need to be highly skilled in a wide variety of disciplines to be effective. They will need an intense knowledge in fields as diverse as geology, political science, and social theory. The purpose of this paper is to better prepare the disaster manager by examining the steps necessary to implement a risk mitigation program and what role it has in the planning for and responding to a natural disaster. Planning for, and responding to, a natural disaster will differ considerably from a man-made disaster. Natural disasters are somewhat predictable and foreseeable, happen based on natural patterns, and their effects can be anticipated. Typical disaster planning and response includes the phases of risk assessment, mitigation, planning, response, and recovery. However, natural disasters tend to be overlooked when budgets are tight, the weather is clear, and there has not been a disaster in recent memory. The type and severity of disaster exposure will vary depending upon the geographical location and time of year. Communities may be exposed to hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, fires, volcanoes, or floods. Recent construction sites may be prone to landslides, erosion, and runoff. These threats are often neglected as "the core concept of risk arising from natural hazards is not a fundamental mode of thinking or discourse for policymaking, and in addition is greatly overshadowed nowadays by the issue of terrorism" (Basher, 2008, p.938). Residential development and population growth have contributed to placing more people at greater risk, and demands an ongoing assessment to assure that planning is up to date. While some disasters offer a window of warning and some immediate predictability, others may strike without any prior warning. While federal agencies may be of assistance after the disaster has struck, local officials are in a better position to assess the potential for disaster and mitigate the probable damage. Local officials are on the front lines in being able to assess the risk presented by a natural disaster for a given area. According to Birkman (2006), "The ability to measure vulnerability is increasingly being seen as a key step towards effective risk reduction and the promotion of a culture of disaster resilience" (p.9). Measuring vulnerability is an ongoing process as construction projects build schools, hospitals, subdivisions, and critical infrastructure. One of the best times to assess the risk of a structure is before it is built. Construction methods need to be considered as well as the location of the building. Schools, hospitals, and residential areas should be well away from areas that are known to be exposed to brush fires or flooding. Landslides, erosion, and water runoff are critical factors affecting a building site and must be considered prior to building (Ozdemir, 2008, p.457). It has been argued that "disaster risk accumulates within inappropriate development paths with increasing disaster losses" (Pelling, 2007, p.374). A major function of disaster preparedness involves working with the local zoning committee and community development boards to insure that structures are located and built in a fashion that emphasizes safety in the event of a predictable natural disaster. There will be several social, economic, and political obstacles to overcome when attempting to mitigate the impact of a disaster through adequate community planning. Communities vary widely in their political preferences, economic resources, and degree of openness, and "it is important not to view communities as internally homogenous, nor necessarily as harmonious in their internal relations" (Pelling, 2007, p.378). Economic factors may drive the construction trends, even though they may place the new residents at risk of a 100-year flood. Local political connections may result in land deals that place public buildings in unsuitable areas. Incorporating natural disaster risk mitigation as part of community planning may be problematic if not presented in a way that the public can understand. We need only to look at the large numbers of people that live in hurricane zones, on active fault lines, or in the shadow of an active volcano to understand the reluctance of people to assess the risk of a natural disaster. Clarke (2008) writes that, "individuals, families, and communities generally do not prepare for disaster or work to reduce exposure in the first place. At the organizational level, vulnerability reduction and response preparation are out of the revenue stream, or at the very least are always costly" (p.686). It is the task of the disaster management team to overcome this resistance and make disaster readiness an issue of public legitimacy. To adequately assess and mitigate the risk of a natural disaster will require the cooperation of the public, as well as a highly skilled disaster manager. Much of the initial response to an impending or developing disaster will come from the general public, and they will need to be involved in the planning. Getting the public's cooperation in assessing and mitigating the risk of a natural disaster has been made more difficult in an era of scarce resources. In addition, local decision processes may be clouded and certain disadvantaged groups may be excluded from the process. Gaining public support for disaster preparedness and mitigation will "require the combination of sound scientific knowledge of the risk factors, well-drafted laws and regulations, and strong involvement of well-informed public groups" (Basher, 2008, p.948). The manager will need to assess the risks of the specific region and lobby for the construction of the necessary barriers, levees, flood ways, and other protective works. The manager will need to be aware of the latest information in construction techniques that reduce a building's vulnerability to wind, rain, or fire. Geological assessments can uncover flood planes that are impacted on an irregular basis. This information can be of value to activist community groups that are willing to work for a safer community. One of the threats that are imposed by a natural disaster is the resulting environmental catastrophe that results from the destruction of a manufacturing or storage facility that houses toxic and dangerous chemicals. There should be as many resources devoted to preventing their release as there are planning for their cleanup. The location of potentially dangerous products should be recorded as a matter of public record. Private industry should be tasked with assuring the security of these products or chemicals in the wake of a natural disaster. Because industry is in the business of making money, cooperation may be difficult to attain. According to Herzog (2007), "Business goals most often do not coincide with governmental goals. Therefore, governments must force businesses to consider externalities that could potentially create a disaster" (p.595). The emergency manager cannot rely on the company acting with rationality or common sense. Herzog (2007) warns that "history reveals that when disaster strikes, common sense and wisdom are overridden by devastation, loss and grief" (p.593). While the firm may not respond to a sense of social responsibility, or adequate planning, local and state laws can be enacted that enforce significant fines in the event of a chemical spill during a natural disaster. The skilled emergency manager will need to be able to work closely with community leaders, politicians, and legislators as part of the risk assessment and mitigation process. In addition to the meteorological and geological events that can cause a natural disaster, the sudden outbreak of a disease epidemic can also threaten the well being of a community or region. To deal with this scenario in the nation's largest urban areas, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) created the Cities Readiness Initiative (CRI) to "develop the ability to provide life-saving medications in the event of a [...] naturally occurring disease outbreak" (Willis et al., 2009, p.xiii). While this program stockpiles medications and plans for their distribution, it has not been applied to smaller urban centers or rural areas. HHS has admitted that there is a difficulty in integrating outlying regions, which are more rural and less populous, and has attributed this to a low level of CRI funding. However, there are other steps an emergency manager can take to minimize the impact of a disease outbreak in smaller communities and rural areas. The early detection and containment of a disease outbreak is critical to controlling its spread, and planning the initial response is a crucial step in risk mitigation. Many of the disciplines, resources, and procedures that apply to a bio-terrorism attack can also be applied to a naturally occurring disease outbreak. Many of the personnel and duties will overlap and " in one community, preparing for mass dispensing of vaccines and antibiotics was the responsibility of the same person who was charged with all other bioterrorism planning" (Willis et al., 2009, p.19). The emergency management team needs to assure that the local doctors and medical staff are trained in the detection, monitoring, and the mechanism for reporting an infectious disease outbreak to the appropriate federal agencies. According to Chen et al. (2002), "As the public health infrastructure is improved through increased funding, it should integrate training for front-line primary care physicians in detection, surveillance, and response activities" (p.749). The emergency manager can do little to control the next outbreak of a natural occurring disease, but can help to insure a prompt and adequate response. In addition to saving lives, protecting buildings, and saving a community's critical infrastructure, the emergency manager needs to mitigate the risk that a natural disaster poses to the culture of an area. This can include the protection of historic sites, art and artifacts, and items of historic or cultural value. While the ultimate responsibility for these items will be in the hands of the museum curator, site manager, or gallery operator, the emergency manager can act as a focal point for information and coordination in the event of a natural disaster. During the planning and risk mitigation phase, the emergency manager is getting information from the cultural asset managers and providing them with the resources necessary to improve their protection. However, "During disaster response there is not time for the hierarchy to fluctuate; it will have to be prescribed in top-down fashion" (Herzog, 2007, p.591). This requires that the manager comprehensively plan for the possible removal and storage of high value cultural assets in the event of a flood, fire, or the risk of looting after a natural disaster. A well communicated plan is the best approach to mitigating the risk of cultural loss during a natural disaster. In conclusion, the emergency manager can greatly reduce the threat of risk from a natural disaster by effectively planning and intervening into the community process. It requires that the manager have knowledge of a number of different disciplines, as well as being an effective communicator and salesperson. Much of the damage done by natural disasters can be reduced by utilizing enhanced construction methods and proper building placement. The responsible storage of chemicals that anticipates a natural disaster can greatly mitigate the damage resulting from a spill or explosion. Outbreaks of an infectious disease can be contained by a prompt and adequate medical response. In addition, historic and cultural treasures can be protected by utilizing comprehensive planning and the implementation of a well-communicated procedure to be followed in the event of a disaster. These actions are some of the best investments a community can make in regard to the risk and reward factor. Reducing the exposure to risk reduces the response and recovery costs incurred in the future. These widely divergent disciplines require the emergency manager be highly competent in a number of different areas. While the manager can do little to prevent a natural disaster from occurring, they can mitigate the risk and damages by effectively approaching risk mitigation, the most critical phase of emergency planning. References Basher, R. (2008). Disaster impacts: Implications and policy responses. Social Research, 75(3), 937-954. Birkmann, J. (2006). Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: Towards disaster resilient societies. New York: United Nations University. Chen, F. M. (2002). On the front lines: Family physicians' preparedness for bioterrorism. The Journal of Family Practice, 51(9), 745-750. Clarke, L. (2008). Possibilistic thinking: A new conceptual tool for thinking about extreme events. Social Research, 75(3), 669-690. Herzog, R. J. (2007). A model of natural disaster administration: Naming and framing theory and reality. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 29(4), 586-604. Ozdemir, A. (2008). Preventing natural hazard risks through sustainable site design. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 17(4), 457-462. Pelling, M. (2007). Learning from others: the scope and challenges for participatory disaster risk assessment. Disasters, 31(4), 373-385. Willis, H. H. et al. (2009). Initial evaluation of the cities readiness initiative. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Read More