Disaster Research 179

Disaster Researchers Solicited for DMAT

The Georgia-3 Disaster Medical Assistance Team (GA-3 DMAT) is looking fordisaster researchers to incorporate within its team during federallyactivated deployments. Ideally, disaster researchers should be based inproximity to Atlanta, GA. It is recommended that researchers train withresponders during regularly held exercises. Paid transportation canprobably be guaranteed from this point during federal activation.

The GA-3 DMAT is a level-one NDMS medical team that is becoming morerecognized for disaster response. The team was federally deployed afterHurricane Andrew, the 1994 Georgia floods, and Hurricane Marilyn.

Disaster medical response occurs in austere conditions. Researchers who donot mind camping or backpacking would be most suitable to inclusion on theteam. Researchers may be asked to assume some administrative duties, inaddition to data collection to provide some benefit to the team duringresponses.

Please send responses to:
Stanley Batchelor RN, EMT-P, CEN
GA-3 DMAT Commander
4086 Brockett Creek Drive
Tucker, GA 30084
770 / 414-8093 (home)
770 / 414-8193 (fax)

The New National Drought Mitigation Center

Drought is a normal part of climate in almost every region of the U.S.That fact, together with increasing population and industry and theheightened values placed on environmental preservation have tested ournation's ability to supply adequate fresh water to its citizens. Droughtsignificantly increases competition for water, raising serious challengesto institutional and legal frameworks for managing water supplies. Toaddress these problems, the National Drought Mitigation Center was createdat the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to reduce societal vulnerability todrought.

In November, the center will launch a home page on the World Wide Web,offering an electronic information clearinghouse of the latest scientificand technical information on drought. The URL is:

The National Lightning Safety Institute

Over the last 50 years, on average, lightning has been the leading causeof weather-related fatalities, outpacing deaths caused by floods,hurricanes, or tornadoes; and annual property damage in the U.S. fromlightning is estimated to cost $2 billion. The National Lightning SafetyInstitute (NLSI), a newly formed nonprofit organization, was created toconduct research and educate others about the hazards of lightning and howto be safe from its effects.

The NLSI believes that lightning's human and economic costs can be reducedthrough adoption of a comprehensive risk management program. Theorganization:

• investigates lightning issues at client request. They have over 18,000 lightning-related documents available to their researchers.
• provides lightning-safety seminars to local and national groups; the presentations are tailored to the recipients and can address atmospheric physics, child safety, insurance, medical research, recreation, structural protection, or other issues.
• conducts a "Certified Lightning Safety Professional" continuing education program for architects, field engineers, facility maintenance, and safety personnel.
• conducts hazard analysis of facilities.

A Hazards Assessment Update

In the 1970s, an assessment of knowledge and research needs concerningnatural hazards in the United States was performed at the University ofColorado at Boulder. That study, directed by Gilbert F. White and J.Eugene Haas, helped to redirect the nation's natural hazards researchagenda toward high priority issues. However, the nation and the world havechanged substantially since that project was completed in 1975. Currently,the Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center isundertaking a second assessment, with the help of dozens of hazardsexperts from other institutions, to update that effort. This is the firstof several articles intended to inform DR readers of the efforts of themany contributors to this project.

The assessment project is designed to assess, evaluate, and summarizeknowledge regarding natural and technological hazards and disastersderived from physical, natural, social, and behavioral science. Thisundertaking is divided into three parts: 1) a review of the past, 2) anaccounting and integration of present knowledge, and 3) the charting offuture efforts. Currently, over 100 experts, from various disciplines,have been recruited from universities and government to work on theproject. Nine experts are leading project subgroups, and five graduatestudents are assisting with research and are planning project-relateddissertations. Additional experts are still being recruited.

The past 20 years are being reviewed to explore the thesis that our nationand its communities are becoming more susceptible to disaster losses. Weare reviewing significant disaster events, synthesizing and analyzing lossdata and expenditures for mitigation, uncovering data requirements for anational baseline, and updating disaster scenarios posed in the 1975assessment. We are also addressing the reasons for increasedsusceptibility - for example, population and climate change, globalizationof economic and social systems, etc. Contributors are also tracing theevolution of hazards policy and institutional and organizationalarrangements.

Subgroups of experts have been organized to integrate and synthesizeknowledge across hazard types and disciplines - for example, land use andplanning; emergency planning and response; and engineering, codes,standards, and construction practices. Subgroups will also create aresearch agenda for the future and estimate the applicability ofmitigation techniques - including maintaining a sustainable local economyand ecosystem - to foster long-term relief from disaster losses.Eventually, the usefulness of these approaches will be examined for theirapplicability to local decision making. Subgroups are now in differentstages of development, and their efforts will be outlined in upcomingarticles.

We are cataloging and evaluating new tools and approaches to disastermitigation and disaster research that have emerged over the last 20 yearsand are estimating their usefulness for the future. For example, what arethe applications of risk analysis and computer-assisted decisioninformation systems? We will eventually bring all research recommendationstogether into a catalog of recommended future research. The second projectyear will see us begin to develop a vehicle for measuring and defininglocal acceptable risk, and we will investigate and make recommendationsabout how to involve local stakeholders in using integrated mitigationmanagement based on those local definitions.

Scientific Profiles of the Big One

[An article from an upcoming "Natural Hazards Observer" that we thought DR readers would enjoy]

Globally, earthquake risk is increasing due to massive urbanization andthe use of less-than-desirable sites within urban regions. The evolutionof megacities has put a tremendous strain on our ability to deal withnatural catastrophes. The January 17, 1995, Great Hanshin (Kobe)earthquake provided us with clear evidence of the extensive damagepossible from earthquakes and the vulnerability of highly complex urbanregions.

For complex, and at times seemingly unmanageable, mega-urban regions, itis important to develop an estimate of the physical and economic impactsof very large earthquakes. It is not clear if Kobe would have betterwithstood the quake if the city had a prior estimate of what could happento its lifelines, residential and commercial properties, economy, andcitizens' well-being. However, the greatest risks (old residentialconstruction, areas of potential liquefaction along the waterfront, weaklinks in the highway and railway systems) probably could have beenidentified and mitigating actions taken. Thus, in an effort to betterunderstand the potential impacts on megacities, RMS, Inc. and StanfordUniversity have developed scenarios for large earthquakes in SanFrancisco, Los Angeles, and Tokyo.

Context of These Studies

In the three studies conducted by the RMS/Stanford team, all analyses werebased on the general vulnerability of various classes of construction ofbuildings, lifelines, and other structures. No specific sites orstructures were inspected. Any special safeguards made by specificbuilders, utility companies, and others to mitigate the effects of anearthquake were not known by the study team and hence not taken intoaccount. Hence, the results of these studies are intended to provide onlya broad picture of the impact of a major earthquake.

In spite of these uncertainties, these studies provide an importantcontribution to urban communities in seismically active regions. Theresearchers welcome comments from readers to improve our ability todevelop such complex scenarios.

The Increasing Nature of Global Earthquake Risk

Again, the interaction between society, structures, and nature is suchthat world earthquake risk is increasing. Risk is a function of fourparameters:

• Hazard is what nature does to humans, e.g., earthquake occurrence, and remains relatively constant from year to year.
• Location refers to the siting of structures and buildings. Good sites have become scarce and less desirable sites are increasingly being used.
• Exposure is also increasing. More population, buildings, and infrastructure results in a higher exposure to earthquake risk.
• Vulnerability is a function of the quality of construction.

Trends in Urbanization

By the year 2000 in the United States, 75% of the U.S. population willlive within 10 miles of either coast. Populations on the Gulf or AtlanticCoasts will be at greater risk from hurricanes, while those on the WestCoast will experience greater vulnerability to earthquakes. Thus, amajority of our population will be living in areas endangered bycatastrophic events. Moreover, this trend of urbanization will continue inthe future. Thus, by the year 2000, there will be more people living inurban areas than the total world population in 1950; and in 2150, therewill be more people living in urban areas than the total world populationtoday. Many of the present large urban centers are located in high seismicregions.

In developed countries, where construction technology exists, buildingcodes have been strictly enforced so that risk to life is eitherdecreasing or remaining constant; however, financial risk is increasingtremendously. Thus, while new structures will save lives, the economiclosses can be very large and the associated risk is increasing. In thecase of developing countries, both the number of people dying due tonatural disasters and economic losses are increasing.

Research Focus and Methodology

In our research, we studied the effects of a major earthquake on the SanFrancisco Bay Area (nine counties), the Los Angeles Basin (Orange and LosAngeles Counties); and the greater metropolitan area of Tokyo. For ourresearch, we employed large databases and geographical informationsystems. Using these tools, we examined soil types and variations;population densities and locations; data on occupancy of variousbuildings; distance of structures from the source of an earthquake; bridgelocations, hospital locations, and structural data; locations of hazardoussubstances and potential impacts of hazardous substances spills; andexpected performance of various types of buildings. After these and otherdata were analyzed, we ascertained the impact of a major earthquake on thebuilding stock, the people, the economy, and the city's lifelines.

Research Results

Our worst-case scenarios for San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Tokyo showedthat economic losses would be much higher than previously estimated, butthe loss of human life would be lower.

- San Francisco -

We first examined the effects of a magnitude 8.3 earthquake in SanFrancisco along the San Andreas fault (essentially a repeat of the 1906earthquake), and found that the nine counties of the Bay Area wouldexperience the following losses:

• $115-$150 billion total economic loss (depending on the time of the day and other variables),
• Insured losses of $45-$60 billion,
• Total property losses due to shaking and fire of $45-$55 billion,
• Economic losses caused by business interruption of $25-$30 billion,
• Lifeline damage of $10-17 billion,
• 2,000 to 6,000 deaths, and
• 8,000 to 18,000 serious injuries.

- Los Angeles -For Los Angeles, we examined the consequences of a magnitude 7.0earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood fault, source of the 1933 Long BeachEarthquake. For this event, we estimate:

• $120-$180 billion total economic loss,
• Insured losses of $50-$75 billion,
• Total property losses due to shaking and fire of $60-$95 billion,
• Business interruption losses of $40-$60 billion,
• Lifeline damage of $15-$20 billion,
• 2,000 to 5,000 deaths, and
• 5,000 to 15,000 serious injuries.

- Tokyo -For Tokyo, we examined recurrence of the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923 onthe Sagami Trough. We found that such an event today would prove even moredevastating, in terms of economic loss, than the 1923 event, which caused$52 billion in damage (in current dollars) and claimed about 140,000lives. These astronomical figures highlight the increase in globalearthquake risk. For the Tokyo metropolitan area (Tokyo, Chiba, Kanagawa,Saitama, Shizuoka prefectures), we estimate:

• Total economic loss of $2.0-2.7 trillion,
• Property loss due to shaking and fire of $l.0-$1.2 trillion,
• Business interruption losses of $800-$1,000 billion,
• 40,000 to 60,000 deaths,
• Lifeline damage of $300-$900 billion, and
• Insurance industry losses of only $35-45 billion (comparatively very small).

Such an earthquake in Tokyo clearly presents a risk of a different orderthan that found in the other scenarios.

Risk Mitigating Strategies

What can we do to mitigate global earthquake risk? We already know thatthere are several strategies:

• Prediction is a technique on which countries such as Japan continue to spend millions of dollars for research. If in fact we are able to predict an earthquake within a narrow window of time and space, then many lives could be saved. However, prediction must be reliable; results must be consistently correct in order for such a warning system to function well.
• Insurance can be an effective risk mitigating instrument, since it not only helps to mitigate the economic effects of a disaster, but also creates a market force that eventually can lead to an improvement in the quality of construction. If insurance companies declare a given property to be uninsurable, it will have a lower value on the open market. Thus, over the long term (e.g., a period of 30 years), insurance companies can influence building standards.
• Collapse Protection or sound engineering clearly minimizes economic and life loss.
• Disaster Preparedness can ameliorate post-earthquake trauma and disaster education can help people cope with disasters when they strike.
• Effective Land-Use Planning and Zoning can reduce economic and life loss, but it can be difficult to implement effective planning and zoning schemes.

What is happening to urban regions and to our ability to predict orestimate what would happen to major metropolitan regions? Again, theanswer to this question involves problems that are complex, and thesolutions are not easy. Any figure that may be generated is alwayssubjected to tremendous argument, but what is not arguable is that theconsequences are serious and growing. Today, the technology exists to dosomething about it. Amazingly, however, the engineers keep talking toengineers; planners keep talking to planners; and insurance companiescontinue failing to use state of the art technologies in their riskmanagement strategies. These groups and others need to talk with eachother if we are to tackle the problems that face us. For the first time inour evolving capability to manage the earthquake risk, we have tools andstrategies to solve the problem. Let us take advantage of those resourcesto make a real impact on seismic risk reduction.

Haresh C. Shah
Risk Management Solutions, Inc.

Communication Between Volcanologists and the Community

[another article from the upcoming "Observer"]

Since the eruptions of the Mount St. Helens volcano in the U.S in 1980 andthe Nevado del Ruiz volcano in Colombia in 1985, people in North, Central,and South America have become more aware of volcanoes. Countries that hadminimal monitoring capabilities at the beginning of the 1980s today havevolcano observatories and have undertaken deeper studies intovolcanological phenomena.

Important advances have been made in research and monitoring techniques,resulting in better understanding, improved volcanic hazards assessments,and enhanced eruption forecasts. A central goal of these advances is toincrease the safety of people and property in areas of volcanic risk.However, scientific progress has not always translated to better hazardmitigation. At some volcanoes, studies have shown a high level of risk tothe surrounding populace, yet there is no monitoring program - or guidancefor acting on a threatened eruption - and local populations are oftenignorant of the nature of the hazard. In addition, local authoritiesequate volcano-hazard awareness with social instability and economicdamage, and may even view volcanologists with distrust.

These situations indicate that scientists are not adequately communicatingwith local communities. This could in part be a consequence of factorssuch as: