Session Summaries

Monday, July 14, 2025

Fifty Years Strong: Facing Threats, Forging Hope, and Turning Research Into Action

Summary by: Denise Chavez, Kansas State University and Antoine Richards, Jacksonville State University

Session Takeaway

Emergency management today faces more frequent and compounding disasters and a great deal of uncertainty, which challenge 50 years of transdisciplinary science and practitioner productivity. Ed Conley’s keynote address revisited the historical contributions of the Natural Hazards Center and its emphasis on strengthening connections and collaboration between researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. Conley discussed the challenges we face in 2025, and shared ideas to uplift future generations through a single tenured concept: the belief that researchers and practitioners can make an impact through solutions, systems, processes, and collective action within communities.

Session Summary

Conley began the 50th Annual Natural Hazards Workshop with an inspiring speech that discussed the collective impacts and contributions of researchers and practitioners to the hazards and disaster field since 1975. He highlighted relationship-building across sectors and silos as a guiding principle that has driven much of the field’s progress. The speech highlighted the tensions and challenges of an evolving emergency management landscape which has produced numerous solutions, tools, and systems that have improved community approaches to preparedness, response, recovery, and resilience nationally and internationally. In the face of increased extreme weather, negative narratives, and funding uncertainty and fragmentation across federal agencies like the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the challenges in the hazards and disaster field are widespread, but not insurmountable. By leveraging science and translating research into action, this community of scholars and practitioners can motivate, uplift, and overcome barriers to ensure that the future is resilient and hopeful for the communities we serve.

Conley incorporated his insights into framework to inform strategy and start conversations about making science deployable: Format, Accessibility, and Relationships (FAR).

Format: In engaging practitioners, researchers should recognize their time constraints and the need for tools that are user-friendly and excellent. A useful approach is to provide the bottom line up front. “Be brief. Be brilliant. Be gone.”
Accessibility: Scientists must find ways to communicate concisely. Identify important details and make recommendations using real-world examples.
Relationships: It is necessary that researchers, practitioners, and policymakers learn how to communicate in non-disaster times. The field should also focus on connecting and uplifting the next generation and preparing them with the skills needed to champion the integration of research into policy and practice.

Key Points

A sense of community is essential. Be inspired to seek out others for collaborative innovation that yields new questions, concepts, and evidence-based solutions.
Relationships are foundational. Build trust, collaborate, leverage shared resources, and focus on unity of effort that can combat uncertain challenges in funding and practice.
Effective leadership is powerful. Crisis can forge leaders dedicated to innovation and success. These leaders can be anyone, emerge from anywhere, and present opportunities for valuable learning and impactful change.

Lead with reason.
Lead with practical optimism.
Lead with hope, leveraging science.

Don’t forget to celebrate milestones, regardless of how small they are.
Practice humility. Throughout every phase of your journey, practice reflection, growth, and an effervescent desire to be of service.
Leverage science and data-driven research to support transformational change amid transformational challenges.
Remain flexible and nimble to overcome the adversity of emerging threats and challenges. Let failure motivate you.
Inspire the next generation. Open new doors, inspire, leverage relationships, and empower up-and-coming researchers and professionals to lay the foundation for impactful, longitudinal change.

Looking Back—Disasters as Turning Points

Summary by: Diamond Joelle Cunningham, Tulane University and Joseph Karanja, Arizona State University

Session Takeaway

This plenary session identified turning points that followed major disasters and how these events altered the trajectory of the field while highlighting missed opportunities for change. The pivotal events include Hurricanes Andrew, Katrina, and Maria; the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; and the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.

Session Summary

Moderated by Scott Knowles, the panel examined how most disaster recovery efforts remain incomplete before the next catastrophe strikes, creating cascading challenges. Walter Gillis Peacock explored Hurricane Andrew's impact through GIS mapping and the efforts of grassroots organizations. Kathleen Tierney covered emergency innovations alongside destructive policy responses that ignored research following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Shirley Laska highlighted deep cultural challenges to lasting recovery from Hurricane Katrina's massive destruction. Lauren Alexander Augustine discussed how the Deepwater Horizon spill had a principal responsible party, setting it apart from natural disasters. This event also revealed how deepwater offshore spills can hide in plain sight and compound other disasters. Fernando Rivera demonstrated how Hurricane Maria exposed systemic neglect in U.S. territories. Panelists concluded by emphasizing the need to rebuild foundational research infrastructure in increasingly challenging academic and political environments.

Key Points

Policy responses to disasters are often disproportionate and counterproductive, with "elite panic" driving decisions that ignore established research and community needs.
Hurricane Andrew revolutionized housing recovery research, introduced GIS mapping for disaster impact assessment, and demonstrated the power of grassroots community organizations.
Hurricane Katrina became one of the most visible turning point disasters, launching the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities initiative and transforming media coverage of disaster response.
Hurricane Maria exposed transboundary crisis challenges in U.S. territories and demonstrated how compounding disasters reveal existing vulnerabilities and legacy infrastructure problems.
The September 11 terrorist attacks resulted in innovative management practices (American Dunkirk evaluation, debris sorting systems), but also led to misguided federal policies, including Department of Homeland Security formation and Federal Emergency Management Agency subordination, that ignored decades of research.
The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill resulted in ~$60 billion in damages and criminal settlements against BP and TransOcean. It was an event that unfolded largely out of view for most people. It raised questions around dispersant use, the role of communities in a technical accident, and the importance of collecting baseline data.
Research funding challenges require sustained interdisciplinary approaches to maintain momentum between major disaster events, especially during times of political turmoil.
Compounding disasters are increasingly common, with events like oil spills being uncovered or moved by subsequent hurricanes, creating complex multi-layered crises.
Audience members participated in two polls through the Whova app. When asked about disasters that served as turning points in their field, Hurricane Katrina was the most frequent response.
For the second poll about personal/professional impacts of disasters, the majority of responses centered on mental health effects and financial considerations, demonstrating how disasters create lasting personal challenges beyond their immediate physical damage.

Suggested Resources

American Dunkirk: The Waterborne Evacuation of Manhattan on 9/11
James Kendra and Tricia Wachtendorf, 2016

Caught in the Path of Katrina: A Survey of the Hurricane's Human Effects
J. Steven Picou, Keith Nicholls, and Foreword by Lee Clarke

Children of Katrina
Alice Fothergill and Lori Peek

The Continuing Storm: Learning from Katrina
Kai Erikson and Lori Peek

Displaced: Life in the Katrina Diaspora
Edited by Lynn Weber and Lori Peek

Recovering Inequality: Hurricane Katrina, the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906, and the Aftermath of Disaster
Steve Kroll-Smith

Standing in the Need: Culture, Comfort, and Coming Home After Katrina
Katherine E. Browne

Fifty Years of Hazards and Disasters Research: Where Do We Go From Here?

Summary by: Carlo Chunga Pizarro, University of California, Irvine

Session Takeaway

Disaster recovery is not just a technical phase; it is a complex, emotional, and political process. Planners and researchers must center equity, prioritize active listening, and design recovery processes that respond to the lived experiences of communities, especially those most vulnerable.

Session Summary

Panelists reflected on decades of disaster recovery research and practice across the United States and internationally, highlighting the urgent need to rethink how communities recover. They emphasized the time-compressed and disorienting nature of recovery, the limits of one-size-fits-all solutions, and the harm caused by disjointed post-disaster policies. Panelists also emphasized deeper community engagement, attention to renters and older adults, as well as recovery frameworks that recognize not just physical rebuilding but also the social and emotional dimensions. The session concluded with a call for planners and researchers to build long-term, equitable systems that move beyond short-term fixes and center the needs of those most often left behind.

Key Points

Recovery is not a linear phase; stabilization, rebuilding, and transformation often overlap.
Time compression amplifies the emotional and logistical challenges of decision-making for both planners and residents.
A universal timescale for recovery could reduce uncertainty among residents and officials.
Authentic community engagement requires listening, trust-building, and acknowledging grief.
Post-disaster policies can unintentionally create “second disasters” if they overlook the lived experiences of affected individuals or disrupt existing social networks.
Comparative recovery studies are crucial for identifying shared challenges and solutions.
Local knowledge and cultural values from the Global South offer critical insights, especially for areas with limited resources.
Equity-focused recovery efforts prioritize the “systematically left behind” rather than focusing on average or majority outcomes.
Long-term resilience requires aligning communications networks, land use, housing, and infrastructure planning before disasters occur.

Suggested Resources

Olshansky, R. B., Hopkins, L. D., & Johnson, L. A. (2012). Disaster and recovery: Processes compressed in time. Natural Hazards Review, 13(3), 173-178. Urban Land Use Planning, Fifth Edition by Philip R. Berke, David R. Godschalk, and Edward J. Kaiser, with Daniel A. Rodriguez
Malecha, M., Masterson, J. H., Yu, S., & Berke, P. (2019). [Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook: Spatially evaluating networks of plans to reduce hazard vulnerability](https://planintegration. com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/PIRS-Guidebook-v2. 0_2021. 09. Pdf)–Version 2.0. Institute for Sustainable Communities, College of Architecture, Texas A&M University.
Comfort, L.K. (2019). The Dynamics of Risk: Changing Technologies and Collective Action in Seismic Risk. Princeton University Press.

The Future of Flood Risk Reduction, Recovery, and Adaptation

Summary by: Nicholas Humphrey, North Dakota State University

Session Takeaway

Flood injustice manifests through the disparities in flood exposure, infrastructure investments, and recovery outcomes for communities of color, low-income populations, and other socially marginalized groups. Equitable flood resilience requires moving beyond technical fixes to center community voices, cultural context, and interdisciplinary collaboration in shaping adaptation and recovery.

Session Summary

The panel emphasized the role of storytelling—qualitative descriptions of the historical and cultural significance of flooding and adaptation—in better understanding the needs of the community in flood recovery. Considering the cultural context and ongoing relationship with the flood hazard is crucial to community resilience. A range of possible strategies should be considered for flood adaptation that incorporates the needs of the community. In an era of federal changes, local and state governments can have a strong role in flood risk reduction. Interdisciplinary work that brings together researchers, practitioners, and community partners can help to identify equitable solutions for flood risk reduction and recovery.

Key Points

Storytelling is important to understand a community’s cultural context and historical relationship with flood risk.
Storytelling can influence political leaders to think more deeply about floodplain development and flood risk mitigation by highlighting unquantifiable factors such as heroism and community strength.
Technological or quantitative approaches to flood risk can take us only so far. A holistic approach that incorporates storytelling, history, and public memory is important.
Understanding the community’s language and culture builds mental models for what flood risk reduction looks like. Working closely with cultural and historical institutions can help to develop flood risk reduction plans that are informed by community priorities.
Communities on a floodplain may disagree on what mitigation should look like, making it essential to foster a culture of listening and respect for diverse visions.
State and local governments play a critical role in land use, construction, and policy decisions amid federal changes.
Interagency and interdisciplinary collaboration can help bridge these perspectives, but community involvement must remain at the center of the process.
Building codes should account for a changing climate and flood risk, limiting new development in floodplains while expanding affordable housing in safer areas.
Flood resilience is an economic and cultural opportunity. For example, the removal of a dam can bring back fish, increase green space, and grow a sense of place in the environment.

Suggested Resources

To participate in a working group meeting of the Flood Justice Research Coordination Network, email Aaron Flores at aaron.b.flores@asu.edu
Flood Justice Research Coordination Network

Federal Social Science: Sustaining Collaboration for a Safer Nation

Summary by: Annika Doneghy, Case Western Reserve University

Session Takeaway

Disasters are fundamentally social phenomena, and social science is essential for understanding and addressing the human dimension of disasters. Integrating social science into disaster scholarship and practice throughout preparedness, response, and recovery phases leads to more successful and equitable outcomes.

Session Summary

Panelists explained why social science is indispensable in disaster contexts and examined the use of social science during different phases of a disaster. They shared examples of how translating social science research into disaster outcomes leads to positive success. Social science addresses the “who, what, when, where, why, and how” of disasters by prioritizing people’s experiences and personal stories. Panelists illustrated how social science documents the importance of building relationships both within and between groups affected by and responding to disasters.

Key Points

Disasters are shaped by human behavior and power structures, making social science essential to disaster scholarship and practice.
Community members have important experiences that help scholars interpret damage, assess response processes, and understand what went well or what went wrong during and after a disaster. Storytelling is a powerful tool!
Effective mitigation requires consideration of everyday social conditions and identities.
Social scientists can act as cultural brokers between and within communities to address issues like disaster reconstruction and cultural preservation.
Skill sets are more important than disciplinary labels. In disaster settings, social scientists have the skills to “read the room”, especially in the field and under quick timelines.
It’s critical for social scientists to understand incident command system (ICS) language to maximize impact during a disaster response.
Recovery is an iterative process; complex and cascading disasters have ongoing social implications and opportunities for social science research.
Events like the Lahaina wildfire provide opportunities to engage social scientists in longitudinal research that can be used to inform ongoing decision making, monitoring, and evaluation as recovery unfolds.
Federal investment in social science research is crucial for resilience; social science produces findings that widely benefit the complex and intertwined system of public, private, and individual investments in our country.

Suggested Resources

Tornado Survivor Research Article
Brief Vulnerability Overview Tool (BVOT)
The Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER)

Data for a Hazard Ready Nation

Summary by: Zaira Pagan Cajigas, University of Michigan

Session Takeaway

Disaster data is only useful when it is both precise and human-centered—granular, geographically specific, and paired with context that reflects real community impacts. Making this data accessible and actionable is critical for effective communication, planning, and resilience.

Session Summary

In this session, panelists discussed how disaster impact data is used to enhance mitigation, preparedness, and response across sectors. Panelists from government, academic, and private sectors shared how they apply data on hazards like earthquakes, landslides, volcanoes, hurricanes, and storm surges. They called attention to current data gaps, especially at local scales. The session highlighted the importance of presenting data in actionable, accessible formats such as maps, shapefiles, dashboards, and alternative visualizations that effectively communicate information to communities. Additionally, panelists emphasized the need for data captures societal impacts and called for greater transparency in how aggregated data from sources such as the United States Geological Survey is calculated and processed.

Key Points

Disaster data guides preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery across sectors.
Granular, geographically specific, and context-rich data (beyond the county level) is critical for accurate risk assessment.
Accessible formats (maps, dashboards, shapefiles, and visualizations) enhance risk communication and decision-making.
Historical and real-time data supports public education, evacuation planning, and infrastructure resilience.
Tools like Spatial Hazard Events and Loss Database for the United States (SHELDUS) and susceptibility maps are used by planners, researchers, insurers, and emergency managers to guide decisions. The SHELDUS database integrates multiple hazard types and loss metrics for academic and practical applications.
Qualitative context matters; data must reflect human and community impacts, not just numbers.
More transparency and attention to societal and mental health impacts in disaster data are needed.

Suggested Resources

Spatial Hazard Events and Loss Database for the United States

Strengthening Local Disaster Resilience With Safer Schools

Summary by: Amidu Kalokoh, Virginia Commonwealth University

Session Takeaway

Schools are vital institutions that educate the nation’s youth and serve as shelters, supply centers, and communication hubs during disasters. Ensuring the resilience and recovery of K-12 schools after disasters is an important part of supporting the students, families, and communities they serve.

Session Summary

This panel examined the past, present, and future of school safety and recovery in an increasingly complex hazard environment. Panelists addressed five key questions: (a) how does their work relate to school safety and recovery during extreme events; (b) what community and organizational factors influence schools’ vulnerability and resilience and their roles in community crises; (c) should schools operate as recovery hubs, and what are the costs and opportunities associated with doing so; (d) what the most pressing issues facing schools in emergency management going forward, amidst rapid climate changes and shifting policies in the United States; and (e) what are some priorities for future research, resources, and practice development?

Key Points

Vulnerability and resilience in schools are significantly influenced by school leadership, the culture of the community, relationships both within and outside the school community, and geographic location.
The lack of clear policies and governance structures to guide decision-making in schools is a significant oversight. Effective resilience and recovery strategies require anticipating potential issues and establishing policies that enable informed, timely decisions.
Schools should prioritize their primary role of educating students and supporting the community’s educational needs. Operating with limited resources and using schools as recovery sites can conflict with their mission and may negatively impact staff well-being.
Schools often do not know how to initiate coordination with emergency managers, and school officials may be unaware of these managers’ roles. Conversely, emergency plans do not always include schools. If schools serve as recovery hubs, additional funding is essential.
Stronger community connections and teacher training are critical, though teachers often face time constraints or reluctance to participate in additional training.
Schools remain valued community institutions, but public attitudes toward schools and educators have declined over the past decades, affecting their capacity to serve effectively in both educational and recovery roles.
With the increased frequency of natural disasters, schools face challenges they have not typically encountered. Many schools are understaffed and lack disaster response expertise, making coordination with local emergency managers and emergency responders essential.
Maintaining best practices and trauma-informed approaches is critical to balancing physical and psychological safety, supporting both students and teachers.
Research is vital for helping schools access evidence-based resources. Understanding the human element of school safety and recovery is essential for effective mitigation and preparedness. Gaps between research and implementation persist, particularly in impacted communities, among displaced children, Black and Latina populations, and territories such as Puerto Rico.

Suggested resources

Public schools in Florida account for over 97% of statewide hurricane evacuation shelter space.
The Department of Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education has disaster recovery units.
PREPaRE Model by the National Association of School Psychologists

TED-Style Talks: Improving Practice Through Disaster Case Studies

Summary by: Esther Oyedele, Virginia Tech

Session Takeaway

No two disasters are the same, but the lessons we learn from them can be. Researchers shared pilot projects and success stories, offering practical insights to help strengthen preparedness and resilience in our own communities.

Session Summary

This session highlighted how case studies from around the world can shape more effective disaster preparedness and response. Speakers shared pilot projects and examples from community-driven research across the globe, offering lessons about the importance of early action, local knowledge, equity, and collaboration. Their projects demonstrated that preparedness does not begin with the emergency, but with relationships, local knowledge, and inclusive planning processes. Speakers noted that communities must be empowered to define their own risks and priorities, and that equity requires the inclusion of voices that are often excluded, such as incarcerated individuals. While each disaster is unique, speakers emphasized that the strategies shared can be adapted across contexts to build more resilient systems.

Key Points

When developing disaster models, it’s essential to center the concept of risk, not just hazards. Risk-based thinking helps communities define what matters to them most by deciding which consequences are acceptable, and which are not.
Building trust and strong relationships is critical for productive, community-led risk discussions.
Preparedness doesn’t require perfection, just progress and collaboration.
Preparedness starts long before a disaster, rooted in everyday decisions and long-term planning. Communities and practitioners are encouraged to start these conversations now, before the next disaster occurs.
The Community-Based Action Research Teams (C-BART) model empowers communities to lead their own disaster research —setting priorities, collecting data, and rebuilding response infrastructure —while promoting data equity, ethical research practices, and long-term resilience through community ownership and support for longitudinal efforts.
Community connection and public awareness enhance resilience. For instance, integrating tools like smoke modeling and air sensors that communities can easily access and manage can strengthen resilience to wildfire smoke.
Disaster equity starts with including incarcerated individuals in planning through deep listening and long-term collaboration, which can drive more just and effective preparedness.
Climate resilience starts with recognizing vulnerabilities in infrastructure.

Suggested Resources

West Bend Prescribed Fire After Action Review (2024)
Book recommendation: Decolonizing methodologies – Research and Indigenous Peoples by Linda Tuhiwai Smith
Wildfire Risk to Communities

The Palisades Fire: Dedication, Partnership, and Transformation

Summary by: Zaira Pagan Cajigas, University of Michigan

Session Takeaway

This session about the Los Angeles Emergency Preparedness Foundation’s Community Brigade pilot program demonstrated the power of trained volunteers from fire-impacted neighborhoods to support wildfire response and recovery. Panelists discussed the impact of this program during the Palisades Fire of 2025. By integrating local knowledge with official emergency operations, the initiative improved trust and highlighted the vital role communities can play in their own safety.

Session Summary

This session highlighted the practical applications of the Community Brigade pilot program, launched by the Los Angeles Emergency Preparedness Foundation in 2023 to empower residents in wildfire-prone areas. During the Palisades Fire, Brigade volunteers contributed over 6,000 hours assisting with evacuations, structure protection, mop-up operations, and humanitarian relief. Panelists—including representatives from the Los Angeles County Fire Department, Community Brigade personnel, and government representatives from Los Angeles County—emphasized the critical roles of local knowledge, trust-building, and volunteer integration in emergency response. Lessons learned include the need for ongoing community education, pre-disaster relationship-building, and adaptive partnerships that extend beyond the immediate hazard. The program offers a generalizable model for enhancing resilience through community involvement and collaboration with official agencies.

Key Points

Community Brigade volunteers filled critical gaps by providing local support during the Palisades Fire, including evacuations and recovery work.
Trained community members contributed over 6,000 volunteer hours during the emergency response.
Local knowledge improves response, as volunteers understood area-specific risks and could assist in low-visibility conditions.
Fire officials emphasized partnerships, noting that large-scale fires require collaboration beyond formal resources.
Volunteers enabled focused use of emergency personnel by handling lower-risk humanitarian tasks.
Educational outreach and workshops helped prepare residents and strengthen the community’s ability to respond to hazards.
Locals have already implemented mitigation strategies to reduce wildfire risk in some areas, as seen in houses that did not suffer wildfire damages post-event.
Community Brigade organizers are using after-action reporting and evaluation to improve and expand the program.

Suggested Resources

Community Brigade Website

From Spark to Smolder: Wildfires Across the Disaster Lifecycle

Summary by: Anthony Wilson, Independent Researcher

Session Takeaway

As wildfires become more frequent and destructive, communities are finding strength in shared knowledge, local leadership, and trust. This session highlights how resilience isn’t just built after the fire; it starts long before, in relationships, planning, and listening to those most at risk.

Session Summary

In this session, panelists responded to two key prompts: (a) how have they and their organizations worked to improve engagement with communities vulnerable to wildfire, and (b) what scalable best practices have inspired meaningful, positive action? A strong emphasis was placed on communication, trust-building, and adapting outreach strategies to meet the evolving needs of different communities—especially those most impacted. Equitable engagement and long-term relationship-building emerged as core themes. During the discussion, audience members also contributed ideas for improving future resource sharing between academics and practitioners, highlighting the importance of communication methods that grow and change alongside the communities they serve.

Key Points

Build a communication plan into your research from the start, not after everything’s wrapped up. Think about using different platforms—not just papers—to get your message out.
Don’t guess what people want to know; ask the community what kind of information would be helpful to them and how they’d prefer to receive it. This is not only respectful but builds trust and makes your work more impactful.
It’s important to meet people where they are, literally and figuratively. That might mean hosting in-person sessions, using visuals, or working with trusted community figures to gain access.
Ethical reciprocity isn’t optional—it’s a standard. That means finding ways to give back or share benefits with communities, not just extracting data from them.
Using multiple formats (e.g. videos, infographics, town halls) instead of relying only on written reports helps ensure your work is accessible to a wider audience. A team member who knows how to translate complex research into everyday language can go a long way in making sure your findings reach people and are used.
These ideas are doable—even simple—but the real challenge is changing the academic mindset that still sees communication as something “extra.”

Suggested Resources

Fire Science Exchange Network
Hawaiian Electric Wildfire Safety Strategy
Hawai’i Wildfire Summit Presenters and Panelists
National Science Foundation Fire Science Innovations Through Research and Education (FIRE) Program
National Interagency Fire Center: Wildfire Education
Maui Fires Research Hub: Community Outreach and Engagement
Maui Nui Strong: Community Engagement Summary Report Available on Ola Lahaina

Insuring a Safe Future: Affordable Recovery and Resilient Housing in a Riskier World

Summary by: Najma Akpanoko, Vanderbilt University

Session Takeaway

Panelists introduced the concept of insurability. This framework promotes the prioritization of a structure’s insurance eligibility among stakeholders involved in decision-making processes around development and maintenance, including construction teams, architects, designers, safety officers, and tax collectors. This resilience-focused approach ensures that a structure meets the qualifications for insurance coverage, including criteria related to geography, structural reinforcement, building code compliance, and maintenance schedules.

Session Summary

Panelists addressed three interconnected topics: (a) challenges of post-disaster housing; (2) strategies to mitigate rising insurance costs; and (c) the importance of inclusivity and collaboration in disaster-resilient design and recovery. They identified key risk factors that affect housing resilience and recovery, such as building code compliance, insurance eligibility, socioeconomic disparities, and deferred maintenance. Panelists also noted ongoing challenges with aggregating and accessing reliable data to support recovery efforts.

To address these challenges, panelists proposed solutions focused on improving resilience and promoting inclusive recovery by encouraging long-term insurance coverage, integrating fortified construction standards, and incorporating community engagement. They also emphasized the need to prioritize disadvantaged communities who are disproportionately impacted by disasters and rising insurance costs.

Key Points

According to United States Billion-Dollar Disaster Event data from 1980 to 2024, there are more costly disaster events occurring in quick succession. In turn, each disaster has become more difficult to address.
Panelists identified that risk mitigation and resilience have historically been part of the insurance industry. The insurance industry influences safety standards in the built environment, similar to the electricity and automobile sectors.
Although climate is treated as an underwriting factor by insurance companies, fragmented climate data exacerbates challenges in disaster recovery.
Building code compliance is low within the United States, yet this it is used by the insurance industry as a criterion to underwrite homes in areas with higher natural disaster risk.
In many U.S. cities, both housing prices and insurance premiums are rising due to population growth, hazardous weather conditions, and increasing demand for larger homes.
Stakeholders should focus on mitigating disaster recovery risks for disadvantaged socioeconomic communities, including renters, low-income households, individuals experiencing homelessness, and people with disabilities.
Structures should be operational and functional under harsh weather conditions at a bare minimum, even for those without insurance.
Integration of fortified construction techniques (e.g., longer nails, reinforced roofs) and mitigation of deferred maintenance schedules increase structural resilience.
Collaboration with the community is essential in rebuilding after a disaster. Community engagement must be accessible and should include support such as transportation, childcare, and compensation for time off work. Inclusive planning should also involve residents from the early stages.
Panelists emphasized that stakeholders should prioritize long-term insurability over short-term insurance coverage.

Suggested Resources

Renter Recovery Trajectory Study, University of Florida
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Knowledge Collaborative
The Resilient Los Angeles (LA) Delta Fund
Heat Policy Innovation Hub, Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment, and Sustainability, Duke University
The Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS), Smart Home America

Advancements for Disaster and Public Health Practice

Summary by: Jessica Nwafor, University of Kentucky

Session Takeaway

Enhancing health outcomes in disasters requires real-time health data collection and cross-agency collaboration, including ethical data sharing for effective emergency preparedness. Panelists emphasized the need for integrated systems and planning, as well as actionable communication strategies, to enhance service to affected communities.

Session Summary

The panelists discussed five overarching themes: (a) strengthening the evidence base by collecting and connecting disaster data; (b) turning insight into action by using and sharing what we learn; (c) driving impact with innovations and equity in disaster response; (d) building the infrastructure for collaboration; and (e) preparing for what comes next.

The panelists outlined key challenges with public health data collection and use in disaster and emergency settings, including funding cuts, lack of standardization in measuring disaster mortalities and fatalities, and fragmented data systems that hinder sharing and comparison across agencies. They discussed multiple innovative strategies to strengthen emergency response efforts.

Key Points

Standardize methods for tracking disaster-related fatalities and a create a system that enhances data sharing among disaster agencies and practitioners.
Design data to be adaptable, as opposed to building data into siloed areas or disciplines, because the work transcends singular agencies or fields.
Improve metrics for measuring hospital preparedness and response readiness for disasters and complex emergencies with measures beyond bed capacity.
Integrate qualitative data to provide deeper insights into community experiences.
Inform the community about the goals of any given intervention or research initiative and share data and results once complete.
Highlight the labour that community workers—who are often long-term responders— perform after initial emergency management teams leave.
Convene a community of practice that encourages relationship-building across peer networks and organizations (e.g., coalitions, medical advisory panels) before disasters happen to facilitate better communication during and after disaster.
Broaden who sits at the table of public health and disaster research through fellowships such as the Bill Anderson Fund and IDEAAL.
Communicate in a meaningful way to the people we serve about what disaster practitioners and scholars do and the value our work provides.

Resources

Medical Advisory Panels through ASPR
Healthcare Coalition (HCC) through ASPR
William Averette (Bill) Anderson Fund Fellowship
Increasing Diversity in and Equitable Access to Applied Learning in Disaster Research Response (IDEAAL) Fellowship
March of Dimes Report 2024, “Nowhere to Go: Maternity Care Deserts Across the US

Developing Community-Led Mitigation Plans for Hazards Resilience

Summary by: Jacquita N. Johnson, Texas A&M University

Session Takeaway

Hazard mitigation plans are most effective when they are developed and led by communities. Researchers and practitioners should work together with communities to develop plans that are reflective of the community’s priorities and based on equity.

Session Summary

Panelists addressed the diverse hazards that communities face and the necessity of unique approaches and localized resources to adequately address them. This includes developing community-led hazard mitigation plans, which are more effective because they incorporate the local and cultural context of the community and utilize place-based generational knowledge. Panelists noted the need to take a multi-level, bottom-up approach through strategies and tools such as storytelling, trainings, network building, an equitable mindset, employing creativity to reach the goal, and understanding critical community assets. They also emphasized the need to be flexible and equity-focused in approach, planning, and evaluation—not as a source of division, but as a paradigm shift to mitigate hazards.

Key Points

Develop plans and goals based on community values and with flexibility.
Understand and value what the community wants in recovery versus what you think they need.
Be open to different approaches, perspectives, and partnerships; the established way of doing things may not work.
Think about the cumulative disruption that may occur due to hazards to understand their true impact.
Communicate across fields and disciplines.
Make the intersection of community-led planning and decision-making work, particularly the bureaucratic process.
Find and bring along community members or organizations that aren’t in the room that should be.
Tell the success stories of community-led planning and recovery to shift the narrative.

Suggested Resources

Incorporating Equity and Social Vulnerability Into the Design of Flood Risk Mitigation Strategies
2023 Coastal Master Plan Data Viewer
2023 Coastal Master Plan Data Access Portal
Climate Resilience Resources for Cultural Heritage
Colorado Alliance for Response Networks
Alliance for Response
National Heritage Responders (NHR)
National Coalition for Arts Preparedness & Emergency Response
Heritage Emergency National Task Force

TED-Style Talks: Using Data and Technology to Understand Disaster

Summary by: Michelle Ruiz, University of Florida

Session Takeaway

Despite increasing access to data and technology, loss of property and life persists in disasters. Innovative data and technology applications can help identify at-risk populations, provide inclusive services, and enhance resiliency in communities before, during, and after a disaster.

Session Summary

Panelists across diverse roles shared their experiences using novel data and technology applications to enhance disaster preparedness and resiliency. These approaches can help identify at-risk populations and improve visual risk communication tools to develop effective protective action messaging. Some technologies are already available but remain underused and can supplement evolving approaches. Panelists discussed the temporal dimensions of data collection in assessing how the public receives and responds to critical risk information during weather events. They also explored additional approaches, such as applying data fusion techniques to gain new insights and using alternative, multidimensional data sources to measure community resilience behavior. The panel also highlighted the advantages and challenges of applying these innovative strategies to reduce risk and improve response before, during, and after a disaster.

Key Points

Integrating public health data and social determinants of health can help inform extreme weather communications.
It is critical to rethink who is at risk by identifying populations within vulnerable communities, particularly in uncommon spaces experiencing extreme weather events.
When using visuals to communicate disaster preparedness, too many details can detract from the main message.
Developing clear visual communication can enhance understanding of protective actions by informing and empowering users.
Longitudinal and perishable data can help researchers understand how people responded to and interpreted information before and during a weather event. Capturing this data can also help inform researchers about the temporal dynamics of risk communication.
As society becomes more reliant on internet-based communications, existing technology such as the NOAA Weather Radio is a reliable source of life-saving weather alerts that can supplement modern alert systems, such as mobile emergency alerts.
Assessing multiple data sources through data fusion can provide new insights into disaster management that may not be easily observed when focusing on one dataset at a time.
Using alternative data sources like the 311 non-emergency system can capture multiple events and community needs based on their calls and requests.

Suggested Resources

American Red Cross Emergency App
The Role of Pictures in Improving Health Communication – Houts et al. 2006
Using Pictures to Convey Health Information – Schuube et al. 2020
NSF NHERI DesignSafe: Public Longitudinal Panel Surveys and Datasets for Hurricanes Henri, Ian, Laura, and Marco
Understanding People's Evolving Risk Assessments and Decisions During Tropical Cyclone Threats: Design and Implementation of a Novel, Longitudinal, Real-Time Survey Methodology – Demuth et al. 2023
Longitudinal Studies of Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Responses for Natural Hazards – Demuth et al. 2024
Collecting Longitudinal, Perishable Social Science Observations During Hurricanes – Demuth et al. 2025

Tuesday, July 15, 2025

Taking Stock—The First, Second, and Third Assessments of Natural Hazards

Summary by: Ruby Hernandez, Texas A&M University and Teye Yevuyibor, Louisiana State University

Session Takeaway

The session reflected on the publications of the First Assessment of Natural Hazards and the Second Assessment, Disasters by Design and its accompanying volumes. The session outlined the legacies of these assessments and their impacts on disaster research. Presenters highlighted interdisciplinary collaboration, policy influence, and community building as the future directions of disaster research and provided an update on the status of the Third Assessment, which is currently underway.

Session Summary

The presenters described the design process and influence of the first two natural hazards assessments, aiming to encourage participation in the Third Assessment. Speakers highlighted key scholars, organizational structure, and evolving methods for assessing risk, preparedness, and response. Through this discussion, speakers highlighted the pivotal role that community-building through collaborative authorship and practitioner involvement played in these assessments. Following the Third Assessment, the report will aim to promote action to reduce vulnerability and disaster impacts.

The Third Assessment has been initiated and will expand on literature reviews and interdisciplinary engagement. The discussion included chapter themes, lead authors, literature review methodologies, and structural innovations such as a new publishing home and enhanced transparency.

Key Points

First Assessment (driven by Dr. Gilbert White’s leadership and doctoral students, coauthored by University of Colorado Boulder faculty).

Generated policy change, encouraging the federal government to place more emphasis on land use practices, building construction practices, and insurance as opposed to dams and levees.
Established the Natural Hazards Center to continuing nurturing the natural hazards community.
Encouraged community building via the first Natural Hazards Workshop, which was the first convening to bring together researchers and practitioners from all levels of government, and industry.

Second Assessment

Emphasized diversity and interdisciplinarity.
Broadened authorship to include researchers and practitioners from a variety of institutions.
Expanded research topics.
Introduced the Disaster by Design book in addition to other books, a special issue, three review articles, and additional journal articles.

Third Assessment

An initial literature review has identified over 24,000 sources.
It will emphasize documenting its process for transparency and future replication.
It will focus on preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation.
Community involvement will be highlighted through authorship, review, and Workshop sessions

Three Key Progress Updates

The Assessment team has prioritized briefings and synthesis of feedback from the community, including the integration of over 300 written and online comments into the Assessment.
Literature review has been used to establish clear objectives, with defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, methodology for search and de-duplication, and documentation every step of the process for replication purposes.
The Third Assessment will have 10 Chapters. All lead authors have been contacted, and an additional 65 co-authors will be invited to participate. Chapters will be divided into three sections, as follow:
- Section 1: Natural Hazards and the Human Toll of Disasters.
- Section 2: What Works? This chapter will ask, how is it that we know more than we have ever known before, yet disaster losses continue to rise?
- Section 3: The Future of the Field. This chapter will examine research workforce and research infrastructure.

Suggested Resources

Sign-up page for updates about the Third Assessment

Assessing Current Conditions—Challenges to Emergency Management

Summary by: America Gaviria Pabón, University of Oklahoma and Judanne Lennox-Morrison, Texas A&M University

Session Takeaway

The emergency management system faces challenges including the rapid dissolution of programs, funding cutes, and staffing shortages, which limits its ability to help communities prepare for and recover from disasters. In this plenary, panelists discussed strategies that individuals and organizations can take collectively and independently to address these challenges.

Session Summary

During this plenary, panelists discussed federal data management and the shared responsibilities of practitioners, academics, scientists, and the private sector. They emphasized the importance of making data more accessible, advocating for collective resource sharing, and promoting evidence-based approaches. Panelists noted that emergency managers often focus on rescue and relief rather than pre-disaster mitigation and argued for a more horizontal organizational structure to improve coordination They highlighted challenges caused by FEMA’s placement within they federal bureaucracy and stressed the need for a holistic approach to emergency management. Academics were encouraged to translate research into actionable guidance for practitioners, providing blueprints for effective strategies and helping both students and professionals think holistically about disaster preparedness, mitigation, and response.

Key Points

Sharing, managing, and advocating access to data is a shared responsibility.
Unity is essential, and restoring it should be a priority. We must embrace collaborative thinking and build cohesion across the field.
Knowledge production in emergency management is fragmented and lacks a holistic approach. Academia plays a critical role in training the next generation of students to address these challenges comprehensively.
Research and science should be shared beyond journals—in ways that are useful, usable, and actually applied by practitioners.
We must be prepared for unexpected crises with a clear, comprehensive plan and a research agenda that translates individual efforts into collective action. A unified voice is crucial.
Engage actively with your community. Go beyond your office, connect with people, and communicate the importance of your work for the future.
Be generous in sharing your skills and knowledge; contributing to others ensures lasting impact and purpose.
Enough is abundance. We need abundant psychology. We have resources to offer others; we don’t need resources ourselves.

Imagining Future Possibilities—Moving From Vision to Reality

Summary by: Lucas Belury, University of Arizona and Brieana DeGrate, Texas A&M University

Session Takeaway

The future of hazards and disaster research must be rooted in equity, imagination, and intergenerational collaboration. Through bold visions and actionable frameworks, alumni of the Bill Anderson Fund emphasized the need to reimagine the field as more inclusive, justice-oriented, and community-centered over the next 50 years.

Session Summary

This forward-looking plenary brought together Bill Anderson Fund alumni and a current fellow to reflect on where disaster research is headed and what steps are needed to shape the next 50 years. Building on the legacy of Dr. Anderson, panelists encouraged attendees to think critically and creatively about how to make the field more responsive, human-centered, and adaptable to evolving challenges. Speakers addressed a range of strategies, including rethinking how emergency management is organized; recognizing the everyday systemic violence that sustains disparities in vulnerability; uplifting perspectives from rural communities, caregivers, schools, and artists as vital sources of resilience; and building stronger partnerships with the people directly affected by hazards to ensure that recovery strategies reflect their knowledge and priorities.

Key Points

Disaster studies must be rooted in justice frameworks to reduce the systemic violence that produces poverty, racism, sexism, xenophobia, queerphobia, and other forms of marginalization.
The profession of emergency management needs to function from a humanitarian ethos rather than a state security ethos by focusing on the alleviation of suffering and the promotion of human welfare.
Shifting from a state security ethos to a humanitarian ethos includes decoupling homeland security from emergency management; reexamining the all-hazards approach; and elevating the everyday, unseen work of front-line communities and local organizations.
Recovery must be viewed as a long-term process that includes social, emotional, and cultural dimensions, not merely rebuilding infrastructure.
Disaster researchers must view their research as not simply neutral, but as a powerful tool for advocacy. This work cannot be simply applied to communities; it must be co-designed with them to ensure it is more than simply performative.
Co-production can be achieved by grounding research in local expertise, viewing marginalized communities not as passive victims, but as active agents in their own lives. In addition, researchers must embrace radical kindness as praxis through mutual aid and empathy.
Creative approaches, including storytelling and speculative fiction, can be powerful tools for imagining alternative futures.
Documenting processes, outcomes, and partnerships is essential; “if it’s not written down, it didn’t happen.”
Understandings of disaster and research practices should be predicated on acknowledging critical truths: systemic inequality and violence perpetuate the disparate impacts of disasters. Contemporary recognition of the racialized and colonial history that has led us to the current moment undergirds the importance of the language of truth.

Suggested Resources

What is a Disaster? by E.L. Quarantelli
Disasters by Design by Dennis Mileti
Parable of the Sower and Parable of the Talents by Octavia Butler
Ladder of Citizen Participation by Sherry Arnstein

Community-Led Relocation: Lessons From 20 Years of International Research

Summary by: Brittany Giles-Jones, Clark Atlanta University

Session Takeaway

Community-led relocation requires extensive planning and implementation, which may focus on developing partnerships between sending and receiving areas, conducting land sustainability analyses, examining infrastructure disinvestment and reinvestment, aligning with a community’s land use plans and policies, and recognizing the long timescales involved.

Session Summary

When analyzing the history of community-led relocation, researchers found a number of lessons that can be utilized to better prepare residents, decision-makers, and other stakeholders for future relocation needs. The panelists discussed similarities and differences found across the United States and Australia during relocation strategy implementation.

The session highlighted the challenges of community-led relocation, noting uneven levels of participation, program complexity, inadequate temporary or transitional housing, and limitations of local, state, and federal capacity to complete all steps in the process.

Furthermore, panelists discussed reliance on rigid federal funding programs, such as those which fall under the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grant program, and limitations found by communities that apply for funding.

Lastly, panelists strongly emphasized the need for proactive versus reactive strategies and programs that allow for better mitigation planning, capacity-building support through state and federal government programs, and continued long-term engagement.

Key Points

Public participation in community-led relocation efforts is hampered by reactive, post-disaster engagement rather than long-term community engagement before disaster strikes.
Poor pre-event planning for buyouts, including project development and management of open space post-buyout, can be harmful to the implementation and effectiveness of community-led relocation efforts.
Lesson-drawing at the state and local level is severely limited, with the exception of wealthier communities that drew from experienced contractors.
Even when there is significant attention placed on pre-event planning, funding is often highly uncertain.
Relocation is deeply personal to community members, and careful and strategic planning is essential when analyzing the benefits and costs of relocation.

Suggested Resources

Natural Hazards Research Australia

Home-Grown Resilience: Local Solutions for Disaster Management

Summary by: Nyla Howell, Rutgers University

Session Takeaway

Building partnerships among disaster management professionals, local governments, and non-government and community-based organizations is crucial to localizing disaster management activities. Leaders and practitioners can achieve this by recognizing the capacity of non-government and community-based organizations, understanding the impacts of local policy, and viewing research as an opportunity to enhance community engagement.

Session Summary

Two questions guided the session's panel discussion: (a) why is policy important in your area, and how is local policy important to address the need for home-grown resilience, and (b) how can local capacity be strengthened or strained by non-government and community-based organizations?

The panelists agreed that local-level action can have a significant impact in making meaningful change during disasters. However, they noted several existing challenges that hinder this impact, including misalignment between local-level disaster policies, limited community engagement during the policymaking process, and excess burden on community-based and non-governmental organizations during disasters. The panelists encouraged local practitioners and researchers to consider how they can build partnerships with community-based organizations through research collaborations to improve community engagement and advocate for community-centric disaster policies and programs at the local level.

Key Points

Local-level policy can be more impactful in creating change around climate resilience and disasters when compared to the federal policy.
Some of the challenges of localizing disaster management include misalignment between local-level disaster policies, limited community engagement during the policymaking process, and overlooking the challenges faced by organizations during disasters.
Community-based organizations can often serve as facilitators between communities and local officials during disasters; however, it is essential to recognize that they may not represent the interests of all community members.
Community engagement involves planning for socially vulnerable groups, such as individuals with disabilities or impaired mobility, to be involved in creating local solutions.
Practitioners should consider how they can scale up localized solutions to the regional level, which could include identifying patterns among communities during disasters and creating spaces where different communities facing similar issues can exchange knowledge and solutions.
Research collaborations between universities and organizations can be beneficial for disaster management professionals seeking to develop programs that engage the community and foster local resilience.
Outputs and metrics from research initiatives can also serve as a tool to advocate for community-centric policy changes among local government leaders.

Planning for Hazards: Lessons From International Contexts

Summary by: Abdulahi Opejin, East Carolina University

Session Takeaway

Disasters are perceived as socially constructed phenomena, and true resilience necessitates addressing the systemic, institutional, and social factors that influence, create, and perpetuate risk. This approach can help to transition from a reactive to a transformative learning method, which encompasses inclusive planning, preparedness, and structural reform that are rooted in equity, cultural sensitivity, and community engagement.

Session Summary

The session highlighted global perspectives on disaster planning by examining case studies from around the world which revealed that disasters are socially constructed entities that are shaped by social, historical, political, and systemic inequalities. Panelists emphasized that disaster preparedness must move beyond disaster reduction and technical knowledge to include culturally informed education, inclusive governance, and skills-based training that centers on the needs of marginalized communities. Furthermore, there is a need to examine how disaster risk is created across the world through risky or inequitable development practices, lack of institutional learning, and exclusion of vulnerable populations in risk preparedness. Panelists described and advocated for strategies like individualized care planning, gender- and disability-inclusive education, and decolonized resilience planning.

Key Points

Disasters preparedness should be informed and improved by lessons learned from past disaster events.
Despite the availability of research, the same failures persist, which indicates a lack of systemic learning and institutional change.
Disaster preparedness should involve a skills-based disaster literacy framework informed by the real-life experiences of survivors and first responders, not by policymakers or government officials alone.
Emotional preparedness, communication, and adaptability should be seen as essential survival tools.
Disaster education should not be perceived as a checklist; rather, it should be perceived as a mindset that can be taught, lived, and shared.
Intersectionality and localized education that integrates gender, disability, and community empowerment should be written into disaster curricula and policies.
Inclusion of vulnerable populations needs to be systematized with the goals of individualized plans, person-centered care, and social services integration to show how institutional reform can directly reduce disaster mortality, especially for people with disabilities.
Inclusion should not be a one-time gesture but rather should be integrated into policy and social service provisions.
There is a need to confront and combat disaster risk creation. Poor urban planning, environmental degradation, and corruption contribute to creating disaster risk.
Disaster resilience should consider the systems of power that cause or perpetuate vulnerability.

From Awareness to Action: Community Engagement for Advancing Risk Communication

Summary by: Joshua McDuffie, Vanderbilt University

Session Takeaway

Effective risk communication is community-centered, ongoing, and co-designed. Successful messaging requires communicators to consider three questions: (a) what do I want to achieve, (b) who is my audience, and (c) how can I make my message concise and actionable?

Session Summary

This panel discussion brought together experts with backgrounds in research and science communication to explore how risk communication strategies can be designed to move individuals and communities from risk awareness to concrete preparedness actions. The discussion emphasized accessibility, cultural relevance, equity, and trust-building. Panelists described examples from local, regional, and national projects, including use of local radio for two-way flood risk conversations in Alaska; messaging to address community skepticism about a redesigned water system; social media strategies used to communicate flood risk to the Spanish-speaking public in Los Angeles; and the challenge of non-digital outreach to Amish communities.

Key Points

Risk awareness alone is insufficient to drive preparedness.
Risk communication is proactive and consistent, while crisis/emergency communication is reactive, under time pressure, and aimed at saving lives in the moment.
Know your audience and take into consideration their cultural, linguistic, and social differences. In addition, avoid jargon, as it may alienate the audience. Instead, use language that communities identify with.
Transparency and humility in stating what is known and unknown builds trust.
Address misinformation proactively via pre-event outreach, media engagement, and partnerships with community-based organizations. Keep lines of communication open with those who may be sources of misinformation.
Project budgets must include dedicated funding for outreach.
Physical scientists need training in social science and communication. Professors can assist in this effort by encouraging their students to take specialized courses or by incorporating communication principles into their own teaching.
Outreach and feedback loops must be continuous, not one-time.
Longitudinal research and pre-/post-tests are useful to capture how people remember and engage with material over time.
Schools are a powerful avenue for youth outreach and engagement. Early involvement builds long-term resilience and risk literacy.

Suggested Resources

Effective Message Writing and the Message Design Dashboard online training
Message Design Dashboard, created by Dr. Jeannette Sutton

TED-Style Talks: Engagement, Ethics, and Collaboration in Local Disaster Management

Summary by: TyKeara Mims, Texas A&M University

Session Takeaway

Local communities possess critical knowledge and capacity in disaster preparedness and response. Centering their experiences leads to more equitable, sustainable, and effective approaches to resilience.

Session Summary

This session examined how community-informed and interdisciplinary strategies can enhance disaster resilience. Speakers drew from public health, emergency management, caregiving, and education to emphasize the importance of engaging communities as partners rather than passive recipients of aid. Examples included implementing wildfire outreach grounded in behavioral theory, turning to rural caregiving as a model for resilience, and finding ways to include undocumented immigrants and children in disaster planning. Presenters emphasized the importance of transitioning from top-down to bottom-up risk governance and fostering lasting relationships built on trust. The session concluded with a collective call to shift the culture of emergency management by treating community engagement as essential, not optional.

Key Points

Public health frameworks like the Health Belief Model can be used to inform public outreach and emergency management practice.
Identifying and addressing barriers to protective action strengthens outreach efforts.
Grassroots and kinship-based responses are central to recovery, especially when institutional support is lacking.
Rural communities demonstrate resilience through caregiving, strong social networks, and adaptive capacity. Insights from caregivers of children with medical complexities in these areas offer valuable lessons for strengthening disaster resilience more broadly across rural populations.
Undocumented immigrants are often excluded from disaster planning and recovery despite being disproportionately affected.
Children are vulnerable to loss and long-term trauma during disasters, but when properly engaged and educated, they can become effective advocates for preparedness and communication.
Community engagement must be sustained, personal, and culturally responsive.
Trust is built through consistent, long-term relationships, especially in marginalized communities.
Bridging the gap between researchers, practitioners, and communities requires mutual accountability and collaboration. To be truly interdisciplinary, we must incorporate the best methods from our affiliated fields.
Disaster education should link theory to real-life application, fostering empowerment through learning.

Suggested Resources

REACH Framework for community outreach planning
The (In)visible Victims of Disaster: Understanding the Vulnerability of Undocumented Latino/a and Indigenous Immigrants – Méndez et al. 2020
Intense Parenting: A Qualitative Study Detailing the Experiences of Parenting Children with Complex Care Needs – Woodgate et al. 2015
California UndocuFund Summit materials

Third Assessment of Natural Hazards Working Session—Part II

Summary by: Yvonne Dadson, State University of New York at Albany

Session Takeaway

The Third Assessment of Natural Hazards transforms years of research into actionable change by creating community among researchers, practitioners and policymakers and prioritizing "what works" over "what we know" through inclusive approaches and diverse perspectives.

Session Summary

The Third U.S. Natural Hazards and Disasters Assessment will synthesize extensive literature into accessible 10,000-word chapters for scholars, students, emergency managers, community leaders, and policymakers. This session covered the proposed chapters five through nine: Cultures of Preparedness, which will examine preparedness and risk communication; Emergency Response, which will analyze organizational coordination during disasters; Recovery, which will explore equitable rebuilding processes; Mitigation, which will investigate barriers to engaging in risk reduction; and Workforce Development, which will address training needs and the increasingly multidisciplinary disaster field. Attendees emphasized equity, bridging the practitioner-researcher divide, clarifying cultural definitions, and developing longitudinal research to track communities over time. Moderators noted the early stage of the process, possible roles for contributors and reviewers, and that chapter content is evolving. The forthcoming book will be open-access and additional products are anticipated from the effort.

Key Points

Every chapter emphasizes evidence-based practices that improve outcomes.
Equity is central: representation in agencies, research, and recovery is essential, not optional.
Practitioner integration bridges the research-practice divide to benefit all stakeholders. Knowledge integration emphasizes moving from competition between researchers and practitioners toward a unified, collaborative system.
Cultural complexity matters: organizational cultures, ethnic cultures, and cultures of safety all shape outcomes.
Recovery takes decades; research must follow communities long-term.
There must be a whole community approach where everyone has a role, because the private sector, nonprofits, and citizens are first responders too.
Scope focuses on U.S. disasters, while lessons remain relevant internationally.
The assessment presents a roadmap for fundamental systems changes, shifting from vertical to horizontal coordination.
Real-world impact is measured by better policy decisions, improved disaster practices, and stronger community outcomes
Recovery strategies should include disaster memorialization and recognition of community losses.

Suggested Resources

FEMA "Cultures of Preparedness" Report - Browne, K. E. (2019).
Susan Cutter's recovery timeline
Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2019 Report– National Institute of Building Sciences
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill study (1989-2010)
Disaster by Design
Hurricane Katrina - organizational and political lessons
California/Mobile wildfire recovery - cultural preservation concerns
September 11th - improvisation and FEMA restructuring into Homeland Security
Revisiting emergencies, disasters, & catastrophes: Adding duration to the hazard event classification
Advancing Language Equity and Resilience in the Atmospheric Sciences

Artificial Intelligence for Disaster Preparedness, Response, and Recovery

Summary by: Afeez Badmus, University of Kansas

Session Takeaway

Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents new opportunities for enhancing disaster preparedness, response, and recovery from analyzing real-time data, to simulating disaster impacts, and to improving communication. However, challenges remain in validating AI-generated outputs, addressing ethical concerns, and ensuring equitable and transparent use. Researchers are actively exploring how to responsibly and effectively integrate AI into the disaster research and management cycle.

Session Summary

This session highlighted pilot projects and exploratory research using AI across the disaster management cycle. Speakers emphasized AI’s potential to support emergency communication, damage assessment, simulation, and data extraction from large text. They also discussed limitations, including bias, trustworthiness of outputs, and ethical risks in high-stakes disaster contexts. The moderator raised questions about AI capabilities, trust in automated decisions, and the benefits and risks of integrating AI into disaster workflows. Panelists responded with real-world examples ranging from social media analysis during hurricanes to immersive simulations for public engagement. Common themes included the need for responsible testing and validation in low-risk scenarios, as well as transparency, ethical accountability, and inclusiveness to avoid exacerbating disparities.

Key Points

AI can monitor public information, detect misinformation, and identify communication gaps to enhance coordination among diverse stakeholders.
Responsible AI use requires careful tool selection, collaboration with engineers, full transparency and documentation, and proactive measures to prevent bias in high-stakes emergency contexts
AI enables realistic simulations of storm impacts using trained image data from events like Hurricane Sandy, with the potential to increase the accessibility and emotional resonance of disaster preparedness messaging.
Generative AI may introduce or amplify biases and misinformation, making transparency and ethical documentation essential for responsible use.
AI tools should be rigorously tested in controlled environments before operational deployment.
Researchers with the National Institute of Standards and Technology are developing frameworks to measure AI performance in extracting information from large text datasets.
Large language models (LLMs) may be more engaging than traditional models but are not necessarily more accurate or reliable.
Users of AI tools should be held accountable if outputs contribute to harm during disaster response.

Making the Most of Disaster Dollars

Summary by: Ibrahim Nureni, Louisiana State University

Session Takeaway

There is an urgent need to shift from reactive disaster recovery to proactive resilience building to save lives and money. The panelists emphasized that the current disaster funding system is outdated, inefficient, and fails to address the growing frequency and severity of environmental hazards.

Session Summary

This session focused on challenges and opportunities in disaster funding practices, emphasizing pre-disaster mitigation, public-private partnerships, and roles of federal, state, and philanthropic enterprises. Panelists noted that bureaucratic delays often slow mitigation projects, leaving marginalized communities with inequitable access to resources and higher risk. Grassroots efforts help local governments prioritize mitigation. Key challenges include ever-evolving disaster policies that can undermine stability for state and local governments; a lack of financial incentives from insurers, banks, and builders to promote resilience; and insufficient state-level systems to track disaster spending and measure the return on investment for mitigation efforts. Panelists advocated for increasing pre-disaster funding, streamlining regulations to fast-track resilient rebuilding, and engaging the public in risk awareness efforts.

Key Points

Investing in pre-disaster mitigation like resilient infrastructure and fortified homes reduces long-term costs and suffering compared to post-disaster recovery.
Tracking disaster spending and showing mitigation return on investment, such as how every $1 in prevention investments saves $3 in recovery costs, helps to justify proactive investments.
State governments often lack disaster spending data and need to budget proactively for disasters instead of relying on reactive measures after they happen.
Philanthropy cannot fully replace government funding. Even if all philanthropic organizations liquidated their assets entirely, the total would fund only 78 days of the federal budget.
Cross-sector collaboration between public, private, and nonprofit groups is key to scaling solutions effectively.
Fortified home standards, such as wind- and wildfire-resistant construction, are effective but require nation-wide scalability
Optimism comes from small wins and innovation. Celebrate local successes, community champions, and low-resource solutions to build support for mitigation.

Suggested Resources

Pew Charitable Trusts' report: “How States Can Budget for Disasters”
The National Institute of Building Science's study: “Resilience Incentivization Roadmap”

Withstanding the Water: A New National Standard for Flood Resilience

Summary by: Gabriela Yáñez González, University of Nebraska—Lincoln

Session Takeaway

Flood resilience requires a proactive, comprehensive approach that prioritizes life safety and long-term community protection.

Session Summary

This session featured a comprehensive discussion about the new American Society of Civil Engineers’ (ASCE) Flood Resistant Design and Construction, ASCE/SEI 24-24. Panelists highlighted significant changes, challenges in adoption, and the critical need for improved flood resilience in building standards. They emphasized the importance of supporting the adoption of the new standard in the building codes.

Key Points

The American Society of Civil engineers developed a new set of codes and standards to update flood-resistant design in a process that prioritizes openness, balance, consensus, and due process.
The new standards shift from a 100-year floodplain to the 500-year floodplain, reflecting the fact that more flood losses are occurring outside traditional flood zones. It uses a risk-based design approach that accounts for different risk categories, moving away from a one-size-fits-all perspective.
Adoption faces hurdles. At the International Code Council hearings, commercial buildings adopted the new standards, but residential buildings did not, with opposition from home builders and the healthcare industry. State-level code variation, higher construction costs, and limited flood map coverage remain barriers.
There is a need to change how floods are discussed, shifting from chance percentages to lives and buildings saved, to create more accurate flood risk perception.
Local governments should review, adopt, implement, and enforce the updated standards, and engage in training and outreach to help the community understand them.
The public can support adoption by contacting local code offices, attending International Code Council hearings, and advocating for comprehensive flood resilience standards in their commununities.

Suggested Resources

Flood Resistant Design and Construction, ASCE/SEI 24-24
International Code Council Hearing videos
International Code Council Cleveland Conference

Navigating the Data Deluge: Towards Practical Decision-Support Tools

Summary by: Rosie Sanchez, University of California, Irvine

Session Takeaway

Researchers and practitioners who gather data must consider its usability in terms of accessibility, completeness, and complexity. Difficulties using data or tools may deter decision-makers in planning processes, resulting in ineffectual mitigation, response, and recovery.

Session Summary

Panelists discussed the ways they use data on the ground, while acknowledging the reality that data may be inaccessible to decision-makers due to its complexity. Moreover, emergency managers and other officials may experience either a dearth of data or too much data, making it difficult to translate into meaningful action. To address these challenges, panelists spoke of intentional designs, user-centered tools, and collaboration to use data in practical ways that connects to the goals of their research. They highlighted new decision-support tools that have been used in various applications, such as flood risk assessments and models for proactive evacuation planning in wildfire and wind events.

Key Points

Many tools are designed for the designer, not necessarily for the public, community, or other collaborative partners (e.g., emergency managers, local city officials).
Disaster officials may experience either a lack of data or overwhelming amounts of data that are not easily digestible or translatable for practice and immediate action.
Decision-support tools must be co-produced with the intended audience or users in mind, centering accessibility, transparency, and updated processes.
Community tools should be designed with non-expert users in mind, resulting in products that are visually engaging and accessible to a plurality of community members.
Tool developers must work within a framework of data justice; that is, they must ask who is included and excluded in both the development process and in access, as well as how they can incorporate hybrid expertise of scientists and community members.
Those who collect data need to consider its usability in the long-term, including use policies and funding for maintenance.

Suggested Resources

International Science Council, Committee on Data: Data Policy for Times of Crisis
Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission Resiliency Guidebook and Toolkit
Interdependent Networked Community Resilience Modeling Environment (IN-CORE)
Eastern Research Group Inc. (ERG)

TED-Style Talks: Managing Disasters Now and Into the Future

Summary by: Latasha Allen, Indiana University Indianapolis

Session Takeaway

A vision for a resilient future demands an understanding of what resiliency truly means and risk communication that is clear, informative, and emotionally engaging. Building resilience is a shared investment that requires learning from the past, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and development and planning that helps communities “bounce forward.”

Session Summary

The Ted-style Talks in this session explored five visionary principles for a resilient future: mitigation, collaboration, thinking ahead, planning for future generations, and bouncing forward. Speakers stressed the importance of a unified, non-siloed vision that incorporates climate, economic, and environmental justice policies. Because “disasters don’t respect borders,” communities must plan beyond jurisdictional boundaries. Building resilience involves reflecting on its meaning, learning from past events, and shifting toward post-disaster renewal to support sustainable recovery and long-term preparedness.

Key Points

A new approach to resilience is renewal, shifting communities away from standard post-crisis responses toward new ways of existing after a disaster.
Risk communication should be direct to the public, removing intermediaries.
Shared commitment across jurisdictions is essential to act on recommendations.
Resilience encompasses more than building design; it includes operational triggers like evacuation plans.
Never let a crisis go to waste —take the opportunity to learn how to “bounce forward,” not just “bouncing back” to pre-disaster conditions but creating something that is stronger, more equitable, and more resilient.
The best way to predict the future is to actively create it.
Practice “foreseeing,” community reinvention, respect for history and loss, and embracing identity to come up with radical new ideas for the future.

Suggested Resources

National Risk Index
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The Blessings of Disaster
Hydrolearn
Disaster Planning for the Next 500 Years

Wednesday, July 16, 2025

Caring for Current and Future Generations—Community-Led Earthquake and Tsunami Mitigation Projects

Summary by: Jocelyn West, Natural Hazards Center

Session Takeaway

This session reflected on the creation of three distinct, yet equally visionary, vertical evacuation structures (VES) for tsunamis along the Pacific Northwest coast. Although seemingly about physical structures, the stories of their construction focused on collaboration, care, and persistence to protect the most vulnerable people in each community.

Session Summary

With the looming risk of a major earthquake and tsunami along the Cascadia Subduction Zone, awareness has grown around the need for mitigation and preparedness strategies for low-lying coastal populations. Vertical evacuation structures—proven effective elsewhere— provide a critical option for people who lack time to evacuate to high ground. Panelists shared firsthand accounts of how three Pacific Northwest communities successfully built such structures. Each effort was spearheaded by passionate local champions and required creative collaborations to fund and maintain progress to make VES a reality. Together, these cases offer lessons and insights about potential paths to construct the dozens of additional VES that are still needed in this region.

Key Points

Many people in low-elevation coastal communities, including residents and visitors, would not have enough time to get to high ground before the first waves arrive, so these structures bring high ground to them.
Vertical evacuation structures don’t come to be on their own. There is a complex process for planning and building them, which requires engagement in the community, sustained collaborations, and reliable funding mechanisms, among other factors.
Education is a people business and hazard mitigation is a people business. It is important to have the trust of the community in both lines of work.
Funding is a persistent challenge for building tsunami evacuation structures. Much of the work has been federally funded, but recently several VES projects have been halted because of cuts to FEMA funding. Even the resources needed to apply for federal grants to fund VES can be a hurdle for communities.
58-80+ additional vertical evacuation structures are needed to provide for the residents of at-risk areas, not including tourists, in Washington State. To ensure people can find and follow tsunami evacuation routes, 1,700+ evacuation route signs are also needed in Washington alone.
While tourists are rarely "in the room" for mitigation conversations and are not typically considered stakeholders of mitigation projects, tourists are still vulnerable to hazards in these areas.
Coastal communities in the Pacific Northwest are aware of their risk, and they are eager for resources and solutions for risk reduction.

Suggested Resources

Guidelines for Design of Structures for Vertical Evacuation from Tsunamis, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

8-step Manual for Tsunami VES (2024)

Washington State Emergency Management Division, Tsunami Information

Capturing Disaster Data Before It Disappears: The Quick Response Research Award Program

Summary by: Samir Nepal, University of North Texas

Session Takeaway

Small rapid response grants from the Quick Response Research Award Program uncover hidden risks and allow researchers to build trust through ethical, community-centered research grounded in local context. These grants often lead to larger projects, sustained community partnerships, and mentorship, emphasizing humility and dedicated service to underserved populations.

Session Summary

Panelists addressed the following two overarching questions in the session: (a) how can small-scale, community-rooted funding mechanisms like rapid response grants be leveraged to catalyze long-term, impactful research, and (b) in what ways can researchers ethically and effectively engage with communities while ensuring reciprocity, autonomy, and sustained relationships?

Panelists shared that effective post-disaster research requires on-the-ground presence, collaboration with diverse stakeholders, and trust built through existing community relationships. Researchers embedded in the field gain deeper insights by observing recovery firsthand and engaging in ongoing conversations about community experiences and goals. Still, panelists emphasized prioritizing compassion over rushed data collection immediately after disasters, allowing time for people to process trauma. Clear communication and empathetic engagement are essential to empower communities in leading their own recovery and resilience.

Key Points

Effective disaster research depends on genuine, empathetic engagement with affected communities.
In the immediate aftermath of a disaster, it is crucial to prioritize human compassion over rushing data collection, allowing individuals time to process trauma.
Community-led initiatives, such as debris management plans, play a vital role in recovery, although resource limitations can hinder swift action.
Embedded researchers gain valuable insights by observing recovery efforts firsthand and engaging in ongoing dialogues about both past experiences and future aspirations.
Clear communication, including defining key terms and roles, is essential for meaningful participation in post-disaster research.
Research should support and empower communities in leading their own recovery and resilience-building.

Suggested Resources

Natural Hazards Center Quick Response Research Award Program
Natural Hazards Center Quick Response Program Recently Funded Research

Reducing Risk and Saving Lives: The Mitigation Matters Research Award Program

Summary by: Shelley McMullen, University of Colorado Denver

Session Takeaway

Research funded by the Mitigation Matters Research Award Program advances research on hazard mitigation. Presented research revealed a need for higher levels of transparency; better coordination between agencies and communities; and an increased capacity for both community-led and local agency-led hazard mitigation planning efforts.

Session Summary

The Mitigation Matters program provides small research awards that have a large impact, advancing research that promotes proactive measures against future hazards. These awards also open the door to future opportunities for awardees, including graduate-level research, new positions, and confidence to apply for additional funding.

Mitigation is crucial for community resilience, but barriers to implementing transparent, ethical, and equitable solutions pose challenges. A common thread throughout the presentations was a need for building capacity within a community to engage in hazard mitigation, whether through higher levels of transparency, support for community-led initiatives, or better coordination across agencies and with community members. Panelists highlighted several disaster mitigation strategies, including pre-disaster recovery planning, flood mapping, buyout programs, and managed retreat.

Key Points

Transparency, clarity, accuracy, and availability of data and information by members of the community are critical for building trust and inclusive decision-making.
Public awareness of potential risk—even learning from experiencing other hazards—helps build community support for mitigation efforts; however, care should be used around the terms “risk” and “safe”.
Individuals and communities may conceptualize risk differently than decision-makers; therefore, resettlement decisions should include the impacted community and consider tradeoffs and potential new risks, such as fragmented social capital and social problems in the resettlement area.
Lack of leadership, coordination, and communication between agencies and with communities slow, dilute, or prevent mitigation projects.
Funding gaps, lack of expertise, and competing priorities distract agencies and communities from prioritizing mitigation.

Suggested Resources

Mitigation Matters Research Projects
A Decision Framework for Equitable Use of Federal Funds for Voluntary Buyout Programs – Motlagh and Hamideh 2025

Health Outcomes in Disasters: A Special Call of the Quick Response Research Award Program

Summary by: Zoe Lefkowitz, University of Colorado Boulder

Session Takeaway

To better understand health outcomes for potentially at-risk populations, the Natural Hazards Center—with support from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation—issued a special call for quick response research to examine the complex physical and psychological health impacts of disasters. In this session, researchers shared perspectives on the health ramifications of recent extreme events and highlighted potential protective measures to keep people healthy in the aftermath of extreme events.

Session Summary

Panelists shared the results of their research funded by the Quick Response Research Award Program and key points about doing effective community-based research.

Panelists emphasized the need to prioritize the communities they work with. They recommend that recipients of this award rely on pre-existing community relationships and/or partnerships, rather than try to develop new ones. To expedite research, panelists suggest recipients “don’t try to reinvent the wheel,” but rather use tools already available, such as existing datasets. Panelists urged fellow researchers and award recipients to ensure that their work is for the community’s benefit, as they strongly believe that research funded by this award should be continued even once the grant has been exhausted.

Key Points

Researchers should continue investing in the area or community their award focused on, even when grant funds are depleted.
Researchers should use their partnerships and results to further their research questions for the benefit of the community.
Researchers should utilize pre-existing relationships with the community and continue work with community stakeholders, including potentially writing future grant proposals together.
Researchers should prioritize practical outcomes that directly benefit the community rather than just publishing journal articles.
Researchers should use this award as a steppingstone to a larger research goal, potentially in conjunction with other grants.

Suggested Resources

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Disaster Research Response (DR2) Program
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Disaster Research Response (DR2) Resources Portal

Building a Weather Ready Nation: The Weather Ready Research Award Program

Summary by: Harman Singh, Pennsylvania State University

Session Takeaway

The Weather Ready Research Award Program supports interdisciplinary research that seeks to understand how community members and stakeholders receive, interpret, and respond to weather forecasts, watches, and warnings.

Session Summary

This session highlighted the Weather Ready Research Award Program, a National Science Foundation-supported initiative bridging research and operations to enhance national hazard resilience. With over $300,000 awarded across seven calls, the program has supported 146 researchers at 80+ institutions. This session featured 4 projects: a GPS dataset on evacuation behavior during California’s 2019 Kincade Fire; a mutual aid mapping effort after Vermont’s 2023 floods; a study on tornado resilience among older adults living in care facilities in Texas; and an analysis of land use strategies in wildfire recovery plans across Western U.S. states. These interdisciplinary, community-centered studies aim to improve preparedness and response to build a more weather ready nation.

Key Points

The Weather Ready Research Award Program issues grant calls focused on specific hazards (e.g., floods, tornadoes, wildfires) and events to support research that is relevant and impactful for various communities and challenges.
This program aims to translate research findings into actionable outcomes by supporting research-to-operations projects and producing reports that can inform decision-making in emergency management and community resilience.
Projects in this session—such as the Vermont flood mapping project—emphasized the importance of community-based participatory efforts, which foster collaboration between researchers and local communities to identify needs, gather data, and develop practical solutions.
The program also supports innovative data collection and analysis, such as the GPS dataset for the Kincade Fire evacuation, to enhance understanding of human behavior during disasters and improve existing models.
There are many structural and systemic issues in disaster preparedness and response, as demonstrated by studies examining older adults in care facilities in Texas and their ability to receive and act on warnings during tornado events.
Shifting from reactive to proactive approaches in disaster management is essential, as illustrated by the study of wildfire recovery in the Western U.S..

Suggested Resources

Weather Ready Research Award Program
Weather Ready Research Funded Projects
National Science Foundation (NSF) Natural Hazards Engineering Research Infrastructure (NHERI) Design Safe
Rural Rivers Project: Research for Resilience with Community in Vermont

Hazards and Disaster Research by New Professionals

Summary by: Brigid Mark, University of Colorado Boulder

Session Takeaway

This session featured new research by emerging students and early career scholars in the hazards and disaster field. The new professionals shared their journey to the discipline and lessons drawn from their research.

Session Summary

This session united four scholars who are early in their career, who shared their research topics, including the effectiveness of hurricane categorization; how the healthcare field can inform disaster management; mental health in wildland forest firefighters; and equity-informed emergency planning. The audience and panel engaged in an important conversation around working for communities, including how to build trust, how different researcher identities affect the process, and how to avoid overburdening communities with research. New professionals hope that their research will highlight the importance of processing the complexity of emotions for those experiencing trauma; remaining people-centered in disaster response as disasters increase in frequency and severity; seeing results in communities rather than being satisfied with just peer-reviewed publications; and considering disaster management as a learning system.

Key Points

The field of disaster management can benefit from leveraging theories, models, and frameworks from the healthcare field, such as the Learning Health Cycle.
Implementation science can help with compounding, cascading disasters given its attentiveness to context, experience with multiple diagnoses, and emphasis on health equity.
Best practices for building trust with communities include spending extended time in the field; listening closely to and meeting needs; following through with commitments; and conducting research in a way that is considerate of community schedules and duties.
Attentiveness to how one’s identities—especially related to bias, language, and power dynamics—affect the research process is important.
Curiosity as a researcher does not give a right to information. Make sure to build relationships and gain knowledge in other ways first to avoid extractive research and overburdening communities.
Lessons learned include stay curious; communicate clearly, consistently, and accessibly; and make time for rest.

Suggested Resources

Critical Incident Stress Management Peer Resources
Sara Belligoni’s website
Community Actions and Responses to Extreme Weather Events project website

Amplifying Voices, Inspiring Change: Stories From Scholarship and Award Winners

Summary by: Brigid Mark, University of Colorado Boulder

Session Takeaway

This session celebrated the contributions of the Mary Fran Myers Scholarship recipients and the Disability and Disasters Award winners. Key takeaways include an emphasis on the agency and wisdom of those with disabilities in disasters, as well as the importance of providing support for emergency management professionals and galleries, libraries, archives, and museums workers navigating difficulties post-disaster.

Session Summary

The winners of the Mary Fran Myers Scholarship and the Disability and Disasters Award shared insights from their varied work, including an examination of how people with disabilities navigated Winter Storm Uri and the 2021 Texas power crisis; a look into the power of disability law in calling attention to housing and accessibility failures that are at play in disaster scenarios; the emotional toll of disasters on galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAM) workers; and efforts to prepare the next generation of emergency management professionals. Disability and Disasters Award winner Angela Frederick argued that people with disabilities have unique wisdom crucial for navigating disasters, as well as unique vulnerabilities, while fellow winner Kate Thorstad emphasized that holding emergency plans accountable to accessibility needs—and laws—is crucial. Mary Fran Myers scholars Dana Murray and Mohammad Newaz Sharif, respectively, discussed how GLAM workers and emergency responders face an emotional toll from disasters that too often goes unrecognized.

Key Points

Disabled communities have critical knowledge that is helpful in disaster contexts since they are used to navigating a world that is inhospitable to their bodies, and they understand the importance of reciprocity over independence.
Accessibility law and legal strategies encouraging the adoption of best practices for accessibility and disability rights can be powerful tools to improve emergency operations plans.
GLAM workers are sometimes expected to take on social work roles in support of their communities, which becomes relevant in disaster contexts. As such, libraries are increasingly hiring those with education and social work backgrounds. Simultaneously, many workers experience burnout with the increase of responsibility in areas for which they are not trained. 
Emergency response work exposes professionals to emotionally charged situations which, when experienced over time, significantly increase the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression. However, mental health support remains inadequate, and the effectiveness of traditional formal and informal interventions is often questionable.
In emergency management, mental health is socially stigmatized for both male employees and the few women employees in the field, who don’t want others to see them as unfit for the work.

Suggested Resources

Disabled Power: A Storm, A Grid, and Embodied Harm in the Age of Disaster by Disability and Disaster award winner Angela Frederick
National Disability Rights Network Member Agencies
Administration for Community Living: Centers for Independent Living
The Partnership for Inclusive Disaster Strategies
National Science Foundation CIVIC REACH Hub, Orlando
Empowering Communities in Crisis: The REACH Hub as an Emergency Management Lifeline in Orlando – Sharif 2025
UCF RESTORES for Supporting Emergency Responders’ Mental Health
Urban Flood Prevention Through Community-Centered Green Stormwater Infrastructure Planning – Sharif et al. 2025
Association of Registrars and Collection Specialists: Emergency Preparedness
American Institute of Conservation: Emergencies

ShakeAlert Ready: Earthquake Early Warning for All

Summary by: Samir Nepal, University of North Texas

Session Takeaway

ShakeAlert is the nation’s only earthquake early warning system. It provides crucial seconds of advance notice, allowing individuals, families, and communities to take protective actions during an earthquake. Expanding ShakeAlert can help to save lives and reduce harm when disaster strikes.

Session Summary

This session explored how ShakeAlert can expand its reach and effectiveness to improve public safety during earthquakes, contribute to minimizing injuries, reduce property damage, lessen economic impacts, and accelerate community recovery following earthquakes. ShakeAlert detects earthquakes within seconds and provides critical time for individuals and communities to take protective actions. To expand its reach, panelists emphasized the need for stronger technical partnerships, integration into building codes and infrastructure, as well as educational outreach in schools and parks, alongside programs like Community Emergency Response Teams. By combining technology with public engagement, ShakeAlert helps minimize injuries, reduce property and economic damage, and accelerate recovery, empowering communities to respond more effectively before, during, and after earthquakes.

Key Points

Expanding technical partnerships is critical to increase system reach and enable more end users to utilize alerts, including integration into building codes, infrastructure, and commercial areas. ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System also needs expansion to include aftershock alerts.
ShakeAlert educational resources are actively used in K-12 schools, promoting earthquake safety through drills, “duck, cover, and hold” techniques, and ongoing awareness efforts. Students play a vital role by sharing these safety practices with their families.
ShakeAlert enhances earthquake safety in 16 parks by educating visitors on risks and protective actions, with plans to expand through collaboration with rangers, staff, and law enforcement.
Community Emergency Response Teams educate communities on ShakeAlert, teaching residents to interpret alerts and take protective actions, leveraging 600,000 members across 2,700 teams to build local resilience.

Suggested Resources

ShakeAlert Website
ShakeAlert sign-up

Developing an Evidence Bank and Knowledge Management System for Adaptation and Resilience

Summary by: Shelley McMullen, University of Colorado Denver

Session Takeaway

Translating research and data into practice requires making data accessible and transparent to the public.

Session Summary

This session provided examples of how agencies use data to reduce risk and improve community resilience through accessibility and transparency. Currently, there is no common approach to measuring impacts of funds and programs aimed at hazard risk reduction or resilience building. Government agencies and other funding organizations need to evaluate investments to learn from projects and attract future support. The ambiguity of the term “resilience” allows governments to use a broad definition when collecting data, but academic researchers can provide a deeper and more conceptual understanding of vulnerability, exposure, and resilience. This iterative exchange creates a pracademic approach to fostering and evaluating resilience. Presenters shared examples and online resources for establishing measurement frameworks and building databases of information that catalog effective adaptation and resilience actions. Additional resources were crowdsourced from the audience.

Key Points

Improving data processes, data collection, and communication of data is an iterative process that requires continuing adjustment of data based on research, practice, and peer learning exchange.
A systems approach to resilience tracking and data sharing encourages coordination, efficiency, and transparency across government agencies.
The use of resilience as a metric has grown, with many agencies combining quantitative and qualitative measures.
The use and publication of data encourages agencies to track investment in resilience projects and encourage further investment into future projects.
Categorization and organization of data into strategic indicators improves public comprehension of trends and meanings.
With concerns about declining federal funding and increasing state responsibility, data sharing and peer learning between states allows local governments to strengthen resilience collaboratively.
Addressing vulnerability and exposure does not automatically translate to resilience building.

Suggested Resources

Case Studies in Disaster Recovery: Adaptation and Innovation Series
Census Bureau's Community Resilience Estimates (CRE)
Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS)
Community Commons provides information about topics related to resilience, health and well-being
Colorado Communities for Climate Action
Colorado Department of Local Affairs Resiliency Dashboard
County Health Rankings & Roadmaps
Developing Key Performance Indicatiors for Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience Planning
Federal Emergency Management Agency Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program
Federal Emergency Management Agency Community Resilience Index and National Risk Index
Federal Emergency Management Agency National Resilience Guidance
Federal Emergency Management Agency Resilience Analysis and Planning Tool (RAPT)
Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 for local, regional and national progress reports
Longmont Indicators Platform
Marshall Fire Recovery Dashboard
Mercy Corps
National Institute of Standards and Technology Community Resilience Program products
National Institute of Standards and Technology Whole Community Preparedness for Smart Cities and Communities (Forthcoming September 2025)
Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-saving Transportation Program (PROTECT)
Rippel Vital Conditions for Health and Well-Being
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 for global target indicators data
State Strategies for Measuring Resilience? A Comparative Study of South Caroline and Washington’s Approaches
TANGO International Technical Assistance to NGOs Resilience Research