Plenary Sessions
2008 Natural Hazards Research and Applications Workshop
Climate Change and its Impacts: Nobel Laureates and Other Experts Discuss Key IPCC Report Findings and their Implications for Societies around the World
Moderator
Tom Wilbanks, Oak Ridge National Lab
Panelists
Margaret Davidson, NOAA Coastal Services Center
Linda Mearns, University Consortium for Atmospheric Research
Roger Pulwarty, NOAA Climate Diagnostic Center
Joel Smith, Stratus Consulting
Recorder
Sarah Dalton, University of Delaware Disaster Research Center
Summary
The session opened with an introduction of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which developed four massive assessment reports on climate change impacts. The relationship between climate change and the natural hazards and disasters community was discussed. Direct relationships between climate change and changes in hazards have developed, in addition to direct relationships between increasing sea levels and vulnerability.
One of the biggest climate problems is the inability of institutes and organizations to adapt when trying to solve this complex issue. Each of the four IPCC reports involved working groups in formulating its assessment. The IPCC needs more integration across these groups. An example of this lack of integration involved the frequency of mid-latitude storms in the third assessment report. Many believe storms will intensify and occur more regularly, however, there is no research to back up this claim. The second working group felt this was an important claim and put it on their extreme impacts table because, although it is highly uncertain, the impacts are very high. Working group one did not include this phenomenon in its extreme impacts table because it didn’t know enough about it. Strong unification regarding risk assessment approaches are needed, as well as information on regional climate change. The IPCC may not be the right context to promote integration, the panel stated.
Change can come through adaptation. For effective adaptation, commitment to change is required. The current level of water stress all over the world is proof. Water resources are likely to dwindle and fall short of increasing demand. This can be seen with the increase of more severe droughts, declining glacial fields in the Andes, and the increase of global mean temperatures. Communication is important. Biases need to be put aside and the use of technological and traditional crisis-solving approaches is needed. Regional and local input also is needed and communication should be framed in non-technical language. The panelists realized broad societal processes create dynamic pressures and conditions aren’t easy to change, but said they should be attempted.
It is hard to define what constitutes a dangerous level of climate change. Climates vary by extreme, site, and systems. It was thought that a one- to two-degree increase in global mean temperature could be considered a dangerous change. As of 1990, the change has been about one degree Celsius. Even with that increase, a drastic change in the climate has been clearly seen. The European heat wave, extreme precipitation, and increases in hurricanes are all good evidence. We need to adapt to deal with these changes in climate. Two types of adaptation were outlined: The “No Regrets” model, where adapting is logical, even without factoring for climate change—updating flood plain maps, for example. “Climate Justified” adaptation, where adaptations are specifically based on climate changes, is the other type. Examples of this include raising seawalls. Panelists said our critical quest is to determine how to update the definition of extremes using observations and project these definitions to future planning. Finding answers to climate change is not easy. We need to make incremental changes and not try to solve the entire issue at once.
The coastal community is one of the most vulnerable populations in the United States. It is also one of the most important areas, accounting for 53% of the country’s population and producing 57% of the U.S. gross domestic product. Having a majority of the money and people on the coast is a problem. A one-meter increase in sea level could bring catastrophic tides. A partnership is needed to integrate climate information and planning tools. We need to mitigate and adapt to sea-level rise. To do this, the effectiveness of public owned infrastructure should be examined to see if construction can withstand it. Success would make the public resilient to risks, able to absorb impacts, and adapt to change. Panelists urged a redefinition of 5-, 10-, 100-, and 500-year floodplains. More information alone won’t offer solutions—we don’t want to make a wrong decision more precisely, in the words of one panelist.
In the discussion segment, it was noted that not only storms, but also earthquakes can be fueled by climate change. Another area stressed was the need to take the lessons learned by developed countries to other vulnerable and less-developed places in the world. Changes all over the world are felt globally. Organizations such as the World Bank sometimes take this task on.
2007 Southern California Wildfires
Moderator
Duane A. Gill, Mississippi State University Social Science Research Center
Panelists
Sarah McCaffrey, U.S. Forest Service
Scott Straley, Rim of the World
Susan Cannon, USGS
Vincent G. Ambrosia, NASA Ames Research Center
Recorder
Claire Hay, Metropolitan State College of Denver
Panelists were asked to focus on the following questions:
- What was their work on or role in the 2007 wildfires?
- How did these efforts inform preparedness, response, and/or resiliency improvements?
- What is the most important aspect of their work for the disaster community to know?
Summary
Panelist descriptions of 2007 California Wildfires efforts highlighted the diversity and breadth of activities involved in large wildfire events. At one end of the spectrum, there was real-time data gathering such as aerial imagery acquisition by NASA, which used Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to support daily operational planning on the ground. Grassroots organizations such as Rim of the World provided the worried, displaced homeowners with property status information. On the intermediate time-scale, we have research conducted by USGS that looks at post-fire hazards such as debris flows that might further impact the community. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the U.S. Forest Service is focused on long-term issues, looking at the broad social repercussions, public acceptance of fire management and mitigation policies, and which policies are best not only for fire and fuels management, but also public willingness to implement and maintain.
During a wildfire, information on the most recent location and intensity of fire is crucial to planning. NASA used its Ikhana UAV with a range of sensor wavelengths—including thermal wavelengths—to penetrate thick smoke that hampered the ability to locate hot spots and the fire line. Data from the Ikhana was quickly processed and put in the hands of incident commanders and other planners. Google Earth was used to integrate imagery, UAV data, and weather.
Along with the information needs of fire managers, evacuated homeowners were also anxious for information about their property. During the 2007 California wildfires, Rim of the World—a Web site for rural communities in the San Bernardino Mountains of Southern California—was the main source of this information, providing a perspective that traditional media could not. Using laptop computers and video cameras, Rim of the World contributors were able to inform residents of which houses had been destroyed or spared. The organization kept its audience advised of recent bulletins, even, at times, before the local traffic control authorities had gotten the information.
Danger doesn’t end when the fire is put out. Subsequent hazards, such as a fast-moving landslide, remain. Rainstorms following a wildfire can quickly turn the burned and stripped area into a devastating debris flow. The USGS is trying to develop tools that would allow land managers to assess the probability of debris-flows on the heels of a wildfire by using data on fire-affected areas, probability and intensity of rainfall, and soil. Such information could be used for mitigation, restoration, and education on local hazards.
The social dynamics of fire management is being studied by the U.S. Forest Service to determine which programs have the best chance of public acceptance. Within affected communities, perceptions of risk vary widely and sometimes in unpredictable ways. A past study found residents who lived “in the woods” had a lower perception of wildfire risk than residents who lived in town. These findings suggest there is a self-selection mechanism that is relative to those who choose to live in rural areas. Studies suggest that researchers and managers should “beware of conventional wisdom.” Expected awareness of risk does not necessarily follow expert expectations. Longer-term residents are not necessarily more aware of hazards in their area.
Recovery from Catastrophic Events: Katrina and Other Potential Catastrophes
Moderator
Dennis Wenger, National Science Foundation
Panelists
Ann-Margaret Esnard, Florida Atlantic University
Gavin Smith, University of North Carolina Center for the Study of Natural Hazards and Disasters
Shirley Laska, University of New Orleans Center for Hazards Assessment, Response and Technology
Susan Cutter, University of South Carolina Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute
Recorder
Rubal Saroha, University of Delaware Disaster Research Center
Summary
Panelists were asked to focus on the following questions:
- With regard to increasing our knowledge about catastrophic discovery recovery, what five research topics should receive the highest priority?
- Given the current state of knowledge regarding disaster recovery and the experience of Hurricane Katrina, what do you see as the major impediments to successful recovery? How can these impediments be overcome?
- If you could design the perfect research proposal to study recovery, what would it look like? In other words, given unlimited resources and unlimited time, what would you propose to study and how would you do it?
With disaster recovery becoming a small cottage industry, it is increasingly important to examine the major components of recovery and the kind of research needed to understand the process. Recovery is a long-term process and is often viewed as a materialistic issue instead of a social process. There is a dialectic relationship between social and materialistic recovery, though, with social recovery not being possible without a material base.
To understand recovery, it is not enough to explore the recovery process in the just sending areas (i.e., disaster-affected areas) but the receiving areas must also be explored. Community resilience should incorporate planning that funnels displacement to one place. Also, planning should address how one deals with external pressures. Recovery is not just an individual process but also a community process, since a successful household recovery can’t take place without community recovery. There is a need to focus on the “sliding scale” population, which includes people who slide from a stable position to a vulnerable position after a disaster.
Primary data is needed for effective recovery. Community characteristics, state and local capacities, preparedness, access to and understanding of data, access to power, and importance to the community should be explored. Research should contribute to these areas. There is a need to integrate mitigation into long-term recovery. Communities often don’t give mitigation high priority since the results are not tangible. At times, recovery may also be affected by pre-disaster policy that contributes to the vulnerability of a community.
Research about policy changes at the local level affecting decision making at the macro level and the role of state and private entities in recovery will help in understanding the process better. Capacity building—not just at the local level, but also at the state and federal level—and building networks are important to recovery.
More insight is needed in the current debates about whether or not building the same houses at the same vulnerable places is really recovery. The factors that influence a population’s recovery rate and potential inequalities in the process must be recognized. Recovery brings issues of social inequality to the surface. Reestablishment occurs when we emphasize human rights and tie recovery to social justice goals. Disaster capitalism is another area that requires further exploration.
There is widespread distrust in vulnerable communities regarding their future after a disaster. Recovery goes through many delays and most bureaucrats are numb to the effects of the wait.
Understanding recovery in spatial terms will reveal a disaster and vulnerability trajectory. Using new technology, such as GIS and mapping tools, we can visualize these trajectories. This will further improve our understanding of the various factors that contribute to vulnerability and recovery, as well as revealing the persistent underlying inequalities.
Cross-cultural research into recovery in different countries over a lengthy time span is also necessary. Various metropolitan cities hold people from all over the world. They bring their social capital and culture with them and we must acknowledge this and collaborate to improve understanding. We can learn from similarities and differences. For a holistic understanding of the process, international multi-method research is needed. We should look across the globe at case study analyses of communities to understand their coping mechanisms and the complexities of each process.