After we build it, what if we don't want them to come?
It seems that the post from last week's meeting may have been eaten by the BlogMonster that shut us down, so I'm reposting the recap to open up the floor to comments about my impersonation of a presentation...Many thanks to Professor Burby for entrusting me with his slideshow.
In short, we spoke about the unintended consequences that arise when containment policies are implemented separately or perhaps without consideration of hazard mitigation issues. Containment can be a natural or legal phenomenon, but establishes a barrier beyond which building cannot occur. In some cities, this has not been overly problematic, but in places like Baltimore, Los Angeles and New Orleans, somewhat dire consequences have occurred as a result.
Specific to New Orleans, the natural containment between Lake Ponchartrain and the Mississippi River coupled with technology enabling the drying out of formerly uninhabitable land and Federal projects resulting in the construction of the I-10 twinspan bridge created the perfect recipe for disaster. We saw first hint with Betsy in 65 and had a harsh reminder in 2005 as Katrina topped the levees and flooded the Crescent City, resulting in the most costly natural disaster to date. The area of New Orleans East, a natural cypress swamp without intervention, is an unfortunate example of how containment can compound the impact of natural disaster.
Because you all sat through my presentation once, I chose to just do an overview here, deciding instead to pose some questions to you, my multi-talented fellow fella's:
1. Getting past Katrina, that heartbreaking hurricane, how do we make better policy in the future that COMBINES planning and mitigation, rather than operating in policy silos?
2. What about emergency/disaster management are those of us from my angle just not seeing? What interdisciplinary approaches can you all provide?
3. How does disaster/emergency management and mitigation fit into urban livability, particularly in light of my comments that Storrs, CT is the least likely place for a natural disaster. My comment was not intended to make fun of the location of my sibling's choice of school, but to highlight that natural disasters are perennial and non-discriminatory, at least in striking. Given this, how do we make them less of an issue?
4. During our discussion, issues of equity and accessibility were raised. What other major American issues did Katrina reveal?
I should note, any brilliant ideas may become part of my dissertation.
In short, we spoke about the unintended consequences that arise when containment policies are implemented separately or perhaps without consideration of hazard mitigation issues. Containment can be a natural or legal phenomenon, but establishes a barrier beyond which building cannot occur. In some cities, this has not been overly problematic, but in places like Baltimore, Los Angeles and New Orleans, somewhat dire consequences have occurred as a result.
Specific to New Orleans, the natural containment between Lake Ponchartrain and the Mississippi River coupled with technology enabling the drying out of formerly uninhabitable land and Federal projects resulting in the construction of the I-10 twinspan bridge created the perfect recipe for disaster. We saw first hint with Betsy in 65 and had a harsh reminder in 2005 as Katrina topped the levees and flooded the Crescent City, resulting in the most costly natural disaster to date. The area of New Orleans East, a natural cypress swamp without intervention, is an unfortunate example of how containment can compound the impact of natural disaster.
Because you all sat through my presentation once, I chose to just do an overview here, deciding instead to pose some questions to you, my multi-talented fellow fella's:
1. Getting past Katrina, that heartbreaking hurricane, how do we make better policy in the future that COMBINES planning and mitigation, rather than operating in policy silos?
2. What about emergency/disaster management are those of us from my angle just not seeing? What interdisciplinary approaches can you all provide?
3. How does disaster/emergency management and mitigation fit into urban livability, particularly in light of my comments that Storrs, CT is the least likely place for a natural disaster. My comment was not intended to make fun of the location of my sibling's choice of school, but to highlight that natural disasters are perennial and non-discriminatory, at least in striking. Given this, how do we make them less of an issue?
4. During our discussion, issues of equity and accessibility were raised. What other major American issues did Katrina reveal?
I should note, any brilliant ideas may become part of my dissertation.
posted by Sarah Jane at
9:42 PM
4 Comments:
That was an excellent interpretation of Professor Burby, and a great presentation. Now, you just have to be sure to dress in costume for Mardi Gras!
In answer to your questions:
1. In order for policies to incorporate both mitigation and planning, they must both be involved in the process of writing the plan. In fact, it is important to think about all different agencies/departments who would be involved or affected in each part of the plan, and be sure to include them in the planning phase. It doesn't make any sense to write the evacuation part of the plan without including departments of transportation, transit agencies, as well as police, fire, and emergency management officials who would know how to move masses of people. In fact, you could probably include sports events planners -- they have experience with moving thousands of people in and out of areas on at least a weekly basis. The key is to involve them early so they can feel ownership over doing their part.
I wrote a paper which looked at emergency management/evacuation plans and transit agencies in a number of cities around the time of Katrina. The finding was that most emergency management plans are not fully integrating transit agencies and vice-versa. We saw the tragic consequences of this in New Orleans and Houston when people could not get out of the city, and yet most other major cities would have fared similarly.
A clear delegation of responsibility for each part of the plan must be outlined. Who will lead which part and who will coordinate in varying situations are key components of every plan. Then, make sure that each of those groups is taking appropriate measures to be ready in the event of an emergency.
2. Two things that I didn't hear about in the lecture are the necessity of updating plans regularly and the need to perform drills/assessments. The likely fact is that most plans will not work in an emergency, and most cities would have fared similarly to New Orleans if faced with a disaster of equal magnitude/natural consequences.
The quality of emergency plans needs to be assessed, and then assistance should be given to those areas whose plans are not sufficient. Penalties must be enforced for those areas that do not comply with improvement mandates, including the withdrawal of federal disaster support for those areas that continue to ignore necessary improvements.
3. One of the things that Katrina/Rita showed is a lack of imagination from elected officials and public professionals. Just because a place is free of natural disasters does not mean that an emergency management plan should not be in place. All sorts of things can happen, including man-made disasters -- look at the recent chemical explosion in Apex. Unlike useless fear mongering, a clear course of action in an emergency would make people feel more empowered to take control of their situation, rather than just be passive victims who are waiting for their doom.
4. I think Katrina showed that people prefer to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that bad things aren't happening rather than deal with them. Katrina was not an unforeseen problem; in the paper I mentioned above, I cite an article in the 2002 Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal (3 years before Katrina) which said that in the event of a Hurricane in New Orleans, 100,000 individuals without cars would be unable to evacuate the city. Yet, no one did anything with this finding. This shows a disconnect between academic research findings and the implementation of solutions. We all know that something equal to Katrina is coming -- it is just a matter of where and when. Are we destined to repeat mistakes of the past? I would say yes unless drastic changes in policy and budget appropriations are made.
This post has been removed by the author.
Great presentation Sarah!
Michael mentioned the foreknowledge that transportation engineers had of the thousands who would not make it out of New Orleans due to a lack of private transportation. The information was accessible, but not acted upon. It almost seems that our nation as a whole assumes that large scale disasters only happen to those "other" countries.
In his book, "The Geography of Thought" Richard Nisbett contrasts the cultural differences of the East and West, noting the tendency towards fatalism in the East. In countries like China, for instance, the question is not "Will a tragedy/disaster strike?" but instead "WHEN will the next disaster strike?" There is acceptance of the dual nature of life and the life/death binary that make tragedy seem normal.
In contrast, U.S. Americans often apply what likely appears to Eastern individuals as a Pollyanna approach. Although we (in the West) are often privy to information that predicts disaster and may even forecast its inevitability, we refuse to believe that we will suffer in this way.
Perhaps the extreme version of the Eastern mindset is fatalistic, which often breeds inaction (since disaster is, after all, inevitable). The Western notion of optimism finds it extreme in the lack of preparedness for predictable disaster, and then shock when said predicted disaster occurs.
Is there a way to strike a balance between fatalism and idealism? The comments and post make great points about the missed details and lack of interdisciplinary conversation. However, these oversights are not likely to be addressed as long as we believe, as a nation, that we are immune to disaster.
Great presentation Sarah!
Michael mentioned the foreknowledge that transportation engineers had of the thousands who would not make it out of New Orleans due to a lack of private transportation. The information was accessible, but not acted upon. It almost seems that our nation as a whole assumes that large scale disasters only happen to those "other" countries.
In his book, "The Geography of Thought" Richard Nisbett contrasts the cultural differences of the East and West, noting the tendency towards fatalism in the East. In countries like China, for instance, the question is not "Will a tragedy/disaster strike?" but instead "WHEN will the next disaster strike?" There is acceptance of the dual nature of life and the life/death binary that make tragedy seem normal.
In contrast, U.S. Americans often apply what likely appears to Eastern individuals as a Pollyanna approach. Although we (in the West) are often privy to information that predicts disaster and may even forecast its inevitability, we refuse to believe that we will suffer in this way.
Perhaps the extreme version of the Eastern mindset is fatalistic, which often breeds inaction (since disaster is, after all, inevitable). The Western notion of optimism finds it extreme in the lack of preparedness for predictable disaster, and then shock when said predicted disaster occurs.
Is there a way to strike a balance between fatalism and idealism? The comments and post make great points about the missed details and lack of interdisciplinary conversation. However, these oversights are not likely to be addressed as long as we believe, as a nation, that we are immune to disaster.
Post a Comment
<< Home