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...