Return to Hazards Center Home Page
This panel discussion centered around research on disasters due to flooding from a variety of events.
Ute Dymon's study was to determine how Geographic Information Systems (GIS) were used at the federal, state, and local level of government following Hurricane Fran and how that compared to their efforts in responding to Hurricane Andrew. Dymon stated that a GIS had not been used in responding to Hurricane Andrew, but the state of North Carolina had made great strides in getting their GIS system loaded with a wide variety of data layers valuable in disaster recovery efforts. Thus, when Hurricane Fran was predicted to hit the coast of North Carolina near Wilmington, maps showing areas to be given priority for evacuation and maps of evacuation routes were available for decision makers. The state government and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) used the information extensively in the recovery process. She determined that local government had made very little use of GIS. Once reason was the lack of electricity to run the systems. She predicted that the development of data layers would continue and that GIS would become increasingly used by all levels of government in future disaster response efforts.
Denise Blanchard-Boehm's study was to determine the extent to which homeowners affected by the 1997 flood along the Truckee River in Nevada bought flood insurance and the factors which influenced their decision to buy the insurance or not. Her research indicated that 52% of the homeowners had flood insurance before the flood event and 62% had flood insurance after the event. About 54% of the homeowners had damage which averaged less than $5,000 per dwelling. She concluded that those who purchased flood insurance had higher incomes, more formal education, and had lived in their residence for a shorter period of time than homeowners who did not purchase the insurance. Those who purchased the flood insurance indicated reasons for purchasing it as: the insurance was required in order to get a mortgage, the cost was low, and the perceived risk of flooding was high. She indicated that she and her colleagues will be evaluating the change in percentage of residents having flood insurance between pre-1994 and post-1994 when the National Flood Insurance Program rules changed.
The purpose of Christine Rodrigue's study was to determine the impact of media coverage on perception of damages from El Niņo-caused storms in California. Her study was not statistically valid because of procedures used in selecting study participants. Her findings revealed: that emergency response agencies have staffs evaluating media coverage to determine effectiveness of performance, the media appeared to be biased in depicting damages to the more affluent areas verses the low income areas, the media did raise the expectations of the residents for a bad winter because of the El Niņo situation, and 70% of the residents maintained some sort of emergency response kit, but only 13% had flood insurance. Homeowners indicated that the cost of the insurance was too great for the perceived low risk for damages.
Chris Adams discussed the differences between "flash" floods and "traditional" floods using the recent flooding at Colorado State University in Fort Collins as a "flash flood laboratory." Flash floods tend to cause greater loss of lives as there is a very short lead time from the storm to the peril and thus no opportunities for sandbagging, etc. Flash floods may cause significant damages outside the traditional floodplains. It is very difficult to define return frequency in the flash flood landscape.
Return to Hazards Center Home Page
Return
to Index of 1998 Session Summaries