Regional growth, structural change, and natural disaster

Hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and other serious natural hazards have been attributed with causing changes in regional economic growth, income, employment, and wealth. Natural disasters are said to cause; (1) an acceleration of existing economic trends; (2) an expansion of employment and income, due to recovery operations (the so-called silver lining); and (3) an alteration in the structure of regional economic activity due to changes in "intra" and "inter" regional trading patterns, and technological change.^ Theoretical and stylized disaster simulations (Cochrane 1975; Haas, Cochrane, and Kates 1977; Petak et al. 1982; Ellson et al. 1983, 1984; Boisvert 1992; Brookshire and McKee 1992) point towards a wide scope of possible negative and long lasting impacts upon economic activity and structure. This work examines the consequences of Hurricane Andrew on Dade County's economy. Following the work of Ellson et al. (1984), Guimaraes et al. (1993), and West and Lenze (1993; 1994), a regional econometric forecasting model (DCEFM) using a framework of "with" and "without" the hurricane is constructed and utilized to assess Hurricane Andrew's impact on the structure and level of economic activity in Dade County, Florida.^ The results of the simulation exercises show that the direct economic impact associated with Hurricane Andrew on Dade County is of short duration, and of isolated sectoral impact, with impact generally limited to construction, TCP (transportation, communications, and public utilities), and agricultural sectors. Regional growth, and changes in income and employment reacted directly to, and within the range and direction set by national economic activity. The simulations also lead to the conclusion that areal extent, infrastructure, and sector specific damages or impacts, as opposed to monetary losses, are the primary determinants of a disaster's effects upon employment, income, growth, and economic structure. ^

A Markov chain location-allocation meta-model for hurricane relief

An emergency is a deviation from a planned course of events that endangers people, properties, or the environment. It can be described as an unexpected event that causes economic damage, destruction, and human suffering. When a disaster happens, Emergency Managers are expected to have a response plan to most likely disaster scenarios. Unlike earthquakes and terrorist attacks, a hurricane response plan can be activated ahead of time, since a hurricane is predicted at least five days before it makes landfall. This research looked into the logistics aspects of the problem, in an attempt to develop a hurricane relief distribution network model. We addressed the problem of how to efficiently and effectively deliver basic relief goods to victims of a hurricane disaster. Specifically, where to preposition State Staging Areas (SSA), which Points of Distributions (PODs) to activate, and the allocation of commodities to each POD. Previous research has addressed several of these issues, but not with the incorporation of the random behavior of the hurricane's intensity and path. This research presents a stochastic meta-model that deals with the location of SSAs and the allocation of commodities. The novelty of the model is that it treats the strength and path of the hurricane as stochastic processes, and models them as Discrete Markov Chains. The demand is also treated as stochastic parameter because it depends on the stochastic behavior of the hurricane. However, for the meta-model, the demand is an input that is determined using Hazards United States (HAZUS), a software developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that estimates losses due to hurricanes and floods. A solution heuristic has been developed based on simulated annealing. Since the meta-model is a multi-objective problem, the heuristic is a multi-objective simulated annealing (MOSA), in which the initial solution and the cooling rate were determined via a Design of Experiments. The experiment showed that the initial temperature (T0) is irrelevant, but temperature reduction (δ) must be very gradual. Assessment of the meta-model indicates that the Markov Chains performed as well or better than forecasts made by the National Hurricane Center (NHC). Tests of the MOSA showed that it provides solutions in an efficient manner. Thus, an illustrative example shows that the meta-model is practical.

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.

Pre-Disaster Risk Management in Post-Earthquake (1999) Turkey

This paper assesses the status of pre-disaster risk management in the case of Turkey. By focusing on the period following the catastrophic August 17, 1999 earthquake, the study benefits from USAID’s Disaster Risk Management Benchmarking Tool (DRMBT). In line with the benchmarking tool, the paper covers key developments in the four components of pre-disaster risk management, namely: risk identification, risk mitigation, risk transfer and disaster preparedness. In the end, it will present three major conclusions: (i) Although post-1999 Turkey has made some important progress in the pre-disaster phase of DRM, particularly with the enactment of obligatory earthquake insurance and tightened standards for building construction, the country is far away from substantial levels of success in DRM. (ii) In recent years, local governments have had been given more authority in the realm of DRM, however, Turkey’s approach to DRM is still predominantly centralized at the expense of successful DRM practices at the local level. (iii) While the devastating 1999 earthquake has resulted in advances in the pre-disaster components of DRM; progress has been mostly in the realm of earthquakes. Turkey’s other major disasters (landslides, floods, wild fires i.e.) also require similar attention by local and central authorities.

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.