Disaster Risk Management Disparity in the Caribbean: Evidence from Barbados, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago

This study on risk and disaster management capacities of four Caribbean countries: Barbados, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago, examines three main dimensions: 1) the impact of natural disasters from 1900 to 2010 (number of events, number of people killed, total number affected, and damage in US$); 2) institutional assessments of disaster risk management disparity; and 3) the 2010 Inter-American Bank for Development (IADB) Disaster Risk and Risk Management indicators for the countries under study. The results show high consistency among the different sources examined, pointing out the need to extend the IADB measurements to the rest of the Caribbean countries. Indexes and indicators constitute a comparison measure vis-à-vis existing benchmarks in order to anticipate a capacity to deal with adverse events and their consequences; however, the indexes and indicators could only be tested against the occurrence of a real event. Therefore, the need exists to establish a sustainable and comprehensive evaluation system after important disasters to assess a country‘s performance, verify the indicators, and gain feedback on measurement systems and methodologies. There is diversity in emergency and preparedness for disasters in the four countries under study. The nature of the event (hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and seismic activity), especially its frequency and the intensity of the damage experienced, is related to how each has designed its risk and disaster management policies and programs to face natural disasters. Vulnerabilities to disaster risks have been increasing, among other factors, because of uncontrolled urbanization, demographic density and poverty increase, social and economic marginalization, and lack of building code enforcement. The four countries under study have shown improvements in risk management capabilities, yet they are far from being completed prepared. Barbados‘ risk management performance is superior, in comparison, to the majority of the countries of the region. However, is still far in achieving high performance levels and sustainability in risk management, primarily when it has the highest gap between potential macroeconomic and financial losses and the ability to face them. The Dominican Republic has shown steady risk performance up to 2008, but two remaining areas for improvement are hazard monitoring and early warning systems. Jamaica has made uneven advances between 1990 and 2008, requiring significant improvements to achieve high performance levels and sustainability in risk management, as well as macroeconomic mitigation infrastructure. Trinidad and Tobago has the lowest risk management score of the 15 countries in the Latin American and Caribbean region as assessed by the IADB study in 2010, yet it has experienced an important vulnerability reduction. In sum, the results confirmed the high disaster risk management disparity in the Caribbean region.

Disater Risk Management Disparity in the Caribbean: Evidence from Barbados, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago

This study on risk and disaster management capacities of four Caribbean countries: Barbados, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago, examines three main dimensions: 1) the impact of natural disasters from 1900 to 2010 (number of events, number of people killed, total number affected, and damage in US$); 2) institutional assessments of disaster risk management disparity; and 3) the 2010 Inter-American Bank for Development (IADB) Disaster Risk and Risk Management indicators for the countries under study. The results show high consistency among the different sources examined, pointing out the need to extend the IADB measurements to the rest of the Caribbean countries. Indexes and indicators constitute a comparison measure vis-à-vis existing benchmarks in order to anticipate a capacity to deal with adverse events and their consequences; however, the indexes and indicators could only be tested against the occurrence of a real event. Therefore, the need exists to establish a sustainable and comprehensive evaluation system after important disasters to assess a country’s performance, verify the indicators, and gain feedback on measurement systems and methodologies. There is diversity in emergency and preparedness for disasters in the four countries under study. The nature of the event (hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and seismic activity), especially its frequency and the intensity of the damage experienced, is related to how each has designed its risk and disaster management policies and programs to face natural disasters. Vulnerabilities to disaster risks have been increasing, among other factors, because of uncontrolled urbanization, demographic density and poverty increase, social and economic marginalization, and lack of building code enforcement. The four countries under study have shown improvements in risk management capabilities, yet they are far from being completed prepared. Barbados’ risk management performance is superior, in comparison, to the majority of the countries of the region. However, is still far in achieving high performance levels and sustainability in risk management, primarily when it has the highest gap between potential macroeconomic and financial losses and the ability to face them. The Dominican Republic has shown steady risk performance up to 2008, but two remaining areas for improvement are hazard monitoring and early warning systems. Jamaica has made uneven advances between 1990 and 2008, requiring significant improvements to achieve high performance levels and sustainability in risk management, as well as macroeconomic mitigation infrastructure. Trinidad and Tobago has the lowest risk management score of the 15 countries in the Latin American and Caribbean region as assessed by the IADB study in 2010, yet it has experienced an important vulnerability reduction. In sum, the results confirmed the high disaster risk management disparity in the Caribbean region.

Hazard mitigation element quality in coastal comprehensive plans in a state with strong requirements for hazard mitigation plan elements

This dissertation examines the quality of hazard mitigation elements in a coastal, hazard prone state. I answer two questions. First, in a state with a strong mandate for hazard mitigation elements in comprehensive plans, does plan quality differ among county governments? Second, if such variation exists, what drives this variation? My research focuses primarily on Florida's 35 coastal counties, which are all at risk for hurricane and flood hazards, and all fall under Florida's mandate to have a comprehensive plan that includes a hazard mitigation element. Research methods included document review to rate the hazard mitigation elements of all 35 coastal county plans and subsequent analysis against demographic and hazard history factors. Following this, I conducted an electronic, nationwide survey of planning professionals and academics, informed by interviews of planning leaders in Florida counties. I found that hazard mitigation element quality varied widely among the 35 Florida coastal counties, but were close to a normal distribution. No plans were of exceptionally high quality. Overall, historical hazard effects did not correlate with hazard mitigation element quality, but some demographic variables that are associated with urban populations did. The variance in hazard mitigation element quality indicates that while state law may mandate, and even prescribe, hazard mitigation in local comprehensive plans, not all plans will result in equal, or even adequate, protection for people. Furthermore, the mixed correlations with demographic variables representing social and disaster vulnerability shows that, at least at the county level, vulnerability to hazards does not have a strong effect on hazard mitigation element quality. From a theory perspective, my research is significant because it compares assumptions about vulnerability based on hazard history and demographics to plan quality. The only vulnerability-related variables that appeared to correlate, and at that mildly so, with hazard mitigation element quality, were those typically representing more urban areas. In terms of the theory of Neo-Institutionalism and theories related to learning organizations, my research shows that planning departments appear to have set norms and rules of operating that preclude both significant public involvement and learning from prior hazard events.

Decision-making under extreme *uncertainty: Rethinking hazard -related perceptions and action

Understanding who evacuates and who does not has been one of the cornerstones of research on the pre-impact phase of both natural and technological hazards. Its history is rich in descriptive illustrations focusing on lists of characteristics of those who flee to safety. Early models of evacuation focused almost exclusively on the relationship between whether warnings were heard and ultimately believed and evacuation behavior. How people came to believe these warnings and even how they interpreted the warnings were not incorporated. In fact, the individual seemed almost removed from the picture with analysis focusing exclusively on external measures. ^ This study built and tested a more comprehensive model of evacuation that centers on the decision-making process, rather than decision outcomes. The model focused on three important factors that alter and shape the evacuation decision-making landscape. These factors are: individual level indicators which exist independently of the hazard itself and act as cultural lenses through which information is heard, processed and interpreted; hazard specific variables that directly relate to the specific hazard threat; and risk perception. The ultimate goal is to determine what factors influence the evacuation decision-making process. Using data collected for 1998's Hurricane Georges, logistic regression models were used to evaluate how well the three main factors help our understanding of how individuals come to their decisions to either flee to safety during a hurricane or remain in their homes. ^ The results of the logistic regression were significant emphasizing that the three broad types of factors tested in the model influence the decision making process. Conclusions drawn from the data analysis focus on how decision-making frames are different for those who can be designated “evacuators” and for those in evacuation zones. ^

It takes an institution's village to retain a student: A comprehensive look at two early warning system undergraduate retention programs and administrators' perceptions of students' experiences and the retention services they provide students in the early warning system retention programs

Institutions have implemented many campus interventions to address student persistence/retention, one of which is Early Warning Systems (EWS). However, few research studies show evidence of interventions that incorporate noncognitive factors/skills, and psychotherapy/psycho-educational processes in the EWS. A qualitative study (phenomenological interview and document analysis) of EWS at both a public and private 4-year Florida university was conducted to explore EWS through the eyes of the administrators of the ways administrators make sense of students' experiences and the services they provide and do not provide to assist students. Administrators' understanding of noncognitive factors and the executive skills subset and their contribution to retention and the executive skills development of at-risk students were also explored. Hossler and Bean's multiple retention lenses theory/paradigms and Perez's retention strategies were used to guide the study. Six administrators from each institution who oversee and/or assist with EWS for first time in college undergraduate students considered academically at-risk for attrition were interviewed. Among numerous findings, at Institution X: EWS was infrequently identified as a service, EWS training was not conducted, numerous cognitive and noncognitive issues/deficits were identified for students, and services/critical departments such as EWS did not work together to share students' information to benefit students. Assessment measures were used to identify students' issues/deficits; however, they were not used to assess, track, and monitor students' issues/deficits. Additionally, the institution's EWS did address students' executive skills function beyond time management and organizational skills, but did not address students' psychotherapy/psycho-educational processes. Among numerous findings, at Institution Y: EWS was frequently identified as a service, EWS training was not conducted, numerous cognitive and noncognitive issues/deficits were identified for students, and services/critical departments such as EWS worked together to share students' information to benefit students. Assessment measures were used to identify, track, and monitor students' issues/deficits; however, they were not used to assess students' issues/deficits. Additionally, the institution's EWS addressed students' executive skills function beyond time management and organizational skills, and psychotherapy/psycho-educational processes. Based on the findings, Perez's retention strategies were not utilized in EWS at Institution X, yet were collectively utilized in EWS at Institution Y, to achieve Hossler and Bean's retention paradigms. Future research could be designed to test the link between engaging in the specific promising activities identified in this research (one-to-one coaching, participation in student success workshops, academic contracts, and tutoring) and student success (e.g., higher GPA, retention). Further, because this research uncovered some concern with how to best handle students with physical and psychological disabilities, future research could link these same promising strategies for improving student performance for example among ADHD students or those with clinical depression.

Does the Pareto Distribution of Hurricane Damage Inherit its Fat Tail from a Zipf Distribution of Assets at Hazard?

Tropical Cyclones are a continuing threat to life and property. Willoughby (2012) found that a Pareto (power-law) cumulative distribution fitted to the most damaging 10% of US hurricane seasons fit their impacts well. Here, we find that damage follows a Pareto distribution because the assets at hazard follow a Zipf distribution, which can be thought of as a Pareto distribution with exponent 1. The Z-CAT model is an idealized hurricane catastrophe model that represents a coastline where populated places with Zipf- distributed assets are randomly scattered and damaged by virtual hurricanes with sizes and intensities generated through a Monte-Carlo process. Results produce realistic Pareto exponents. The ability of the Z-CAT model to simulate different climate scenarios allowed testing of sensitivities to Maximum Potential Intensity, landfall rates and building structure vulnerability. The Z-CAT model results demonstrate that a statistical significant difference in damage is found when only changes in the parameters create a doubling of damage.

Hazard Mitigation Element Quality in Coastal Comprehensive Plans in a State with Strong Requirements for Hazard Mitigation Plan Elements

This dissertation examines the quality of hazard mitigation elements in a coastal, hazard prone state. I answer two questions. First, in a state with a strong mandate for hazard mitigation elements in comprehensive plans, does plan quality differ among county governments? Second, if such variation exists, what drives this variation? My research focuses primarily on Florida’s 35 coastal counties, which are all at risk for hurricane and flood hazards, and all fall under Florida’s mandate to have a comprehensive plan that includes a hazard mitigation element. Research methods included document review to rate the hazard mitigation elements of all 35 coastal county plans and subsequent analysis against demographic and hazard history factors. Following this, I conducted an electronic, nationwide survey of planning professionals and academics, informed by interviews of planning leaders in Florida counties. I found that hazard mitigation element quality varied widely among the 35 Florida coastal counties, but were close to a normal distribution. No plans were of exceptionally high quality. Overall, historical hazard effects did not correlate with hazard mitigation element quality, but some demographic variables that are associated with urban populations did. The variance in hazard mitigation element quality indicates that while state law may mandate, and even prescribe, hazard mitigation in local comprehensive plans, not all plans will result in equal, or even adequate, protection for people. Furthermore, the mixed correlations with demographic variables representing social and disaster vulnerability shows that, at least at the county level, vulnerability to hazards does not have a strong effect on hazard mitigation element quality. From a theory perspective, my research is significant because it compares assumptions about vulnerability based on hazard history and demographics to plan quality. The only vulnerability-related variables that appeared to correlate, and at that mildly so, with hazard mitigation element quality, were those typically representing more urban areas. In terms of the theory of Neo-Institutionalism and theories related to learning organizations, my research shows that planning departments appear to have set norms and rules of operating that preclude both significant public involvement and learning from prior hazard events.