The New Era of Catastrophes

In recent years, we have seen the terrifying impacts of natural disasters, including Hurricane Katrina, the Wenchuan and Kobe earthquakes, the Fukushima tsunami and nuclear disaster, and, most recently, 2012's Hurricane Sandy. Globally, the average annual number of natural disasters reported has more than doubled since 1980. These catastrophes are increasing in the number of meteorological events (tropical storms, severe weather, winter storms, hail, tornadoes, and local storms), hydrological events (flash floods, river floods, storm surge, and landslides), and climatological events (heatwaves, freezes, wildfires, and drought). Although geophysical events, such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, have remained more stable, there has been catastrophic damage to structures and lives, most notably seen in the Kobe earthquake, Wenchuan earthquake, and, more recently, earthquakes in Haiti in 2010 and Japan in 2011. We are experiencing not only an increased number of events but also an increase in their magnitude or severity. The number of "devastating" catastrophes (those with more than 500 fatalities or more than US$650 million in overall losses) and "great" catastrophes (those with more than 2,000 fatalities, 200,000 homeless, severe hits to the gross domestic product (GDP), or the country being dependent on international support) continues to climb globally (figure 1.1).

With the anticipated changes in the global climatic system, continued disregard for vulnerability is likely to worsen the future impacts of hazard events. Recent scientific assessments from climate change researchers suggest that irreversible changes are already under way and will probably result in more frequent extreme weather events. Climate change models also reveal that intensity of a number of weather-related hazards is also likely to worsen in the coming decades. As a result, coastal cities will face higher levels of flood erosion, and riverine communities will probably face more frequent and severe floods. These communities will be overwhelmed more frequently as the impacts of global climate change become increasingly evident in the coming decades. Such catastrophic hazard losses can be avoided only through integrated planning at the local level that focuses on mitigating vulnerability from natural hazards across all sectors of local planning.

Disasters are still considered a part of weather systems and as such are treated as singular events ("acts of God") rather than symptoms of a larger trend. Because disasters are treated as extraordinary, the focus of many efforts has been on the response to such crises and the ways in which citizens and communities should prepare for disasters, rather than the ways in which disaster impacts can be mitigated and recovery can be shortened or made easier. It is important to recognize that hazards such as droughts, fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes are natural occurrences; they become disasters only when they interact with human systems. In other words, if a forest fire consumes only forest, it is not a disaster. Only when it interacts with homes and structures does it become a disaster. The same with hurricanes: If they strike unpopulated areas, they are not disasters. It is only when they strike populations that a disaster occurs. In this way, disasters are not singular, accidental events; they are symptoms of more chronic problems and are, in fact, social events.

If we understand disasters only as atypical events, then our focus tends to be on response and preparedness initiatives. However, these efforts are largely part of the field of emergency management, not urban planning. Response and preparedness are only a part of an appropriate response to the increase and predictability of natural hazards. Mitigation and recovery are also important, and they fall outside the purview of emergency management. Emergency managers and their allied professions typically have little or no ability to control where and how development occurs, standards to which new construction is held, enforcement of these standards, or long-term recovery activities after a disaster, which can take years. At the same time, municipalities typically do not consider disaster management or recovery to be part of their normal responsibilities. Few comprehensive plans, even in coastal areas, include elements specifically dedicated to planning for and responding to disasters. Even the city of Galveston, a barrier island on one of the most frequently affected coastlines in the world, did not have a recovery plan in place at the time that Hurricane Ike struck in 2008. With the slow onset of climate change impacts, the incorporation of mitigation strategies in comprehensive plans becomes all the more meaningful for communities. A number of catastrophic losses from natural disasters, specifically in urban settings, may be explained by the safe development paradox, which results from well-intentioned, but short-sighted, public policy decisions at all levels of government.

After a disaster, a window of opportunity opens during which rapid changes take place. Communities are rebuilding, meaning that changes in population, land use, density, or industrial composition are taking place at a pace that is not normal. Furthermore, there may be an influx of financial resources and speculators (i.e., outsiders) looking to take advantage of the changes that are occurring. Cities that do not have a plan in place are ill-equipped to guide these changes. Without a vision for the future, goals for development, and policies in place to guide it, cities or communities may find themselves changing in ways that are out of their control, including permanent changes to the composition of the population, rapid changes in land uses, redevelopment, and changes in the economy. Some of these changes may be positive, whereas others are negative.

Fortunately, communities have many tools available to them that have proven to be efficient and more economical than traditional structural mitigation techniques such as dams and levees. Also, levees constructed in low-lying areas can create a false sense of safety from flooding. This sense of safety results from, and perhaps even induces, increased development and growth of population in areas made "safe" by structural mitigation measures. Herein lies the paradox: Flood safety works such as levees can only withstand the impact (with adequate maintenance) up to their design parameters but will undoubtedly fail in events that exceed those parameters. Consequences of this miscalculated sense of safety are evident in catastrophic losses experienced in New Orleans because of high-intensity development, which could have been avoided in the first place by more sensitive development in such high-risk areas. Instead, guiding land development, strengthening building codes, and protecting natural resources are all techniques that are best accomplished with thoughtful and comprehensive city and regional planning. Hazard mitigation and creating resilient communities must be at the forefront of hazard planning and, when done effectively, will save lives and property, making the work of emergency managers more effective.

Two Sides of Increasing Exposure

Natural disasters are an outcome of an interaction between the biophysical systems, our human systems, and the built environment we create. Indeed, we are creating "disasters by design," meaning that as communities grow and develop into hazardous areas—be it along hurricane-prone coastal lines, within floodplains, atop unstable slopes, or along fault lines—we create scenarios that magnify the loss of life and property. As we develop in hazardous areas we significantly affect and diminish the biophysical systems on which we depend and those that can help protect and reduce the impacts of disasters, such as wetlands, barrier islands, and tree stands. If we, as a society, are creating disasters by design, then we have the capability to create communities that are resilient to disaster. How we plan our communities, the patterns of development that occur, and the location of physically vulnerable structures and socially vulnerable populations significantly affect the ability of communities to withstand and even prosper in the face of disaster.

Human action and inaction are damaging our ecological systems and increasing vulnerability to disaster as we continue to develop and expand into high-hazard areas. According to the 2010 U.S. Census data, the United States is most dense along its coastlines. These data also show that there have been population losses in the middle of America and population growth along the coastlines. It is no surprise, then, that we are seeing an increase in damage from hurricanes and floods each year. Despite planners' efforts to manage growth through higher-density development patterns, they may be exacerbating hazard exposure (see box 1.1).

Population growth along the coast has compromised ecosystems and reduced their ability to protect us by providing ecosystem services. Ecosystems provide services such as cleaning drinking water, decomposing waste, cleaning air, or absorbing and redirecting water that would otherwise cause flooding. Therefore, ecosystem preservation and restoration are inextricably related to hazards. The destruction and compromising of ecosystems, such as wetlands, can increase the severity of hazard impacts by increasing exposure to hazards such as surge and flooding.

If vulnerabilities are addressed, solutions more often focus on short-term technological fixes such as levees, sea walls, and beach renourishment programs. These programs themselves can also have detrimental environmental consequences and even promote development in hazardous areas.

Permits acquired for altering wetlands and developing these environmentally sensitive areas are far too easy to come by. Wetlands provide valuable ecosystem services, particularly in hurricane-prone and surge-zone areas. Wetlands act as a sponge for surge waters and have been shown to reduce total damage. When wetlands are altered or destroyed, along with high surge risk, the result is much higher exposure of new infrastructure, housing, and people to hurricane impacts. Preservation and restoration of ecosystems are an important element of hazard mitigation planning; unfortunately, the protection of these natural resources is often neglected. Instead, structural mitigation—the construction of engineered solutions—is still the most popular approach (see box 1.2). While these structural solutions may protect certain areas, they often shift water elsewhere, causing unintended consequences for other communities. Further, they can be very expensive, and are often not the most cost-effective method of mitigating disasters. Finally, they often encourage further development, which can ultimately place more people and property in harm's way.

Case Study: Galveston, Texas, a Living Laboratory

Many national trends, such as coastal population growth, are occurring in Texas. It is one of the most rapidly growing states in the nation, one that experiences both frequent and varied disasters (see box 1.3). Texas is known for a more laissez-faire development approach, with economic development being the driving force behind population growth. It is a property-rights state, meaning that the political will in Texas is in favor of individual property owners rather than progressive planning. Consequently, Texas is a very challenging place to implement planning interventions, causing Texas planners to be creative and to find solutions that will withstand legal challenge. We like to say that if you can plan in Texas, you can plan anywhere. All this makes Texas a fascinating case study and a living laboratory for hazard planning.

The eighteen counties along the Texas coast represent 5.8 percent of the landmass but make up 24.3 percent of the state's 2010 population, roughly 6.1 million people (an increase from 5.2 million in 2000) (figure 1.15). The five northern coastal counties hold only 2.1 percent of the state's landmass but 20 percent of the state's population and nearly 21 percent of the state's housing. These five northern coastal counties were among the hardest hit by Tropical Storm Allison and hurricanes Rita and Ike.

Hurricane Ike affected the Texas coast at levels that had not been seen since the 1900 storm, which caused more than 6,000 deaths and remains the deadliest natural disaster in U.S. history. Hurricane Ike made landfall on Galveston Island—nearly 108 years to the day after the 1900 storm—at the mouth of the Houston ship channel, early on September 13, 2008. On September 9, predictions had its path headed toward the Texas coastline, but it was not predicted to hit Galveston. It wasn't until September 11 that mandatory evacuations were called for Galveston.

The storm surge began more than 24 hours before it made landfall. The historic sea wall of Galveston, which was first constructed in 1904, helped protect the east end of the gulf side of the island, believed to be the most exposed (figure 1.16). However, because of the path of the storm, the surge actually came from the bay side of the island. A surge of 17 feet came across the island from Galveston Bay, where the seawall was not there to protect residents or structures. Hurricane Ike was a Category 2 hurricane based on wind speed but was a Category 4 storm based on storm surge. Because of the nature of this storm, storm prediction has been modified to include separate predictions for wind and surge. Hurricane Ike resulted in the following:

• Damage to 75 percent of all buildings in Galveston

• A loss of 17 percent of the island's population

• The loss of 47 percent of the century-old tree canopy due to saltwater intrusion

• Property losses that made it the third most costly natural disaster in U.S. history

As of 2014, Galveston is still recovering and rebuilding. Recovery of the island has been uneven. The most affected populations have been much slower to recover, and even now, more than 500 units of public housing have not been rebuilt, permanently displacing this vulnerable population.

Our Research on Community Resilience

Over the past 10 years or so, researchers from Texas A&M University's Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center have been actively engaged in communities along the Texas Gulf Coast and beyond. As urban planning faculty members, we have focused on studying how communities prepare for, respond to, and recover from natural disasters, including coastal hazards such as the hurricanes that are frequent in this area, as well as inland flooding, fire, drought, tornadoes, and even technological disasters. Our research has involved, first, the development of data standards and sources to be used to assess social, economic, physical, and environmental conditions and change in communities, at the smallest level of geography possible. Second, our research has sought to identify drivers of change in land use, in development patterns, and ultimately in both physical and social vulnerability. Finally, when faced with a disaster in our own backyard, our research has sought to understand how these conditions affected the magnitude and patterns of damage, losses, and recovery (figures 1.17, 1.18, 1.19, and 1.20). In September 2008, the Texas Coast experienced what we call a "focusing event." Hurricane Ike followed other hurricanes that struck earlier in the summer, causing flooding in the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas. Though tragic, these events not only provided the opportunity to conduct research on resiliency but also catalyzed planning activity to act on the sometimes temporary political will to make positive changes in the aftermath of a storm. Our belief is that the research described in this book will be valuable to anyone working to create a more resilient community.

A Fact Basis Should Be Developed through Mapping

Before Hurricane Ike, the Texas Coastal Communities Planning Atlas (http://coastalatlas.arch.tamu.edu/), a Web-based, user-friendly geographic information system (GIS) mapping interface that covers coastal communities along the Texas coast, documented the physical, environmental, regulatory, and social development patterns present. In the months that followed Hurricane Ike, data were collected to provide immediate insight on impact, dislocation, and early repair and rebuilding decisions. The combination of research data and previously mapped data in the Texas Coastal Communities Planning Atlas has allowed us to understand how predicted responses compared with actual responses and has allowed us to gauge community recovery at multiple scales over several years. Identifying and mapping such data in a community is the fact basis for sound decision making on actions to be taken or policies to be implemented by both policymakers (local officials) and resident stakeholders. Identifying and mapping specific components and characteristics is described in part II.

Land Use Practices and Policies Can Be Applied to Disaster Planning

A survey of all Texas coastal jurisdictions on land use practices undertaken in 2010 has allowed us to better understand the tools that are available to planners to mitigate hazards through a variety of techniques, including limiting development, strengthening building codes, protecting natural resources, and educating residents about the impacts of disasters. This survey helped us understand the extent to which these tools were being used and make recommendations about which may be most effective and feasible. Furthermore, through participatory observation analysis, qualitative interviews, and documentary analysis, we have tracked policy changes by county and city governments to assess adaptive management and social learning. These results inform part III of this handbook.