John H. Sorrensen
Abstract
The wide range of actions taken by individuals and groups in response to natural hazards are called adjustments. Statements are frequently made in a casual manner by scientists and public managers about how adjustments do or do not relate to each other. The purpose of this study is to deepen and strengthen existing thinking on how adjustments interact.
It does this by experimenting with different modes of analysis which helps illuminate relationships. A mathematical definition distinguishes between positive and negative relationships and random associations. Using this definition two problems are explored. First, what effect will the National Flood Insurance Program have on more general flood plain management? Second, what will be the impact of earthquake warnings on existing earthquake adjustments?
Three approaches are used to measure interaction. A probability model is devised to empirically assess relationships between adjustment pairs. Adjustment systems are scaled to analyze interactions within a larger mix of adjustments. The sequence of flood plain adjustment is examined to gain knowledge of how interactions may be changing.
Several findings warrant attention. The analysis of associations utilizing the probability model allows some distinction to be made between systems in which interaction favors shiftsto mixed strategies, and those which will perpetuate single strategies.
Some adjustment systems are scalable, with the scale measuring distance from loss absorption. An aggregate scale provides support for a theory which states that there are four distinct modes of coping with hazard--loss absorption, loss bearing, preventing effects, and radical change.
The sequence of adjustment strategies in Iowa urban areas shows a move toward increased emphasis on social mitigation efforts to distribute loss and prevent effects. Care must be exercised to avoid a situation in which too much reliance is placed on narrow strategies. An analysis of sequence in the Denver area illustrates how interactions are changing. Catastrophe theory helps show how the strong interaction between structural measure has dissipated, in part due to the NFIP. This change will favor the national goal to achieve more comprehensive flood adjustment.
Finally, two major conclusions are made. First, in making decisions or setting policy managers should be cognizant that efforts with respect to one adjustment will have an impact on others. Second, that changing the way in which adjustments interact can lead to more efficient hazard management.
Ph.D. in Geography
University of Colorado Boulder
1977
Committee Members
Gilbert F. White
Nicholas Helburn