Case Studies in Disaster Mitigation and Prevention: Disaster and Emergency Management: Case Studies in Adaptation and Innovation series

By Himanshu Grover and Tanveer Islam

Case Studies in Disaster Mitigation and Prevention: Disaster and Emergency Management: Case Studies in Adaptation and Innovation series presents cases illustrating efforts to reduce human and material losses associated with disasters. This volume demonstrates that mitigation is an ongoing phase in which communities continually pursue long-term hazard resistance and reduction. Cases illustrate the importance of risk assessment in the development of mitigation strategies through hazard mapping and multi-hazard mitigation planning. Cases also illustrate approaches to reduction risk through structural and non-structural means, giving consideration to benefits or limitations of these strategies in different contexts.

The contributions of different mitigation activities to disaster risk reduction efforts are examined using the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.

• Presents in-depth cases studies in disaster mitigation, one of the phases of disaster management
• Unites practice and research from multiple disciplines to highlight the complexity of disaster mitigation, including environmental and earth sciences, engineering, public health, geography, sociology, and anthropology
• Examines policy and ethical dilemmas faced by decision makers in disaster situations

• Language: English
• Publisher: Elsevier Science
• Release date: Dec 3, 2022
• ISBN: 9780128095393

Book preview

Case Studies in Disaster Mitigation and Prevention

Disaster and Emergency Management: Case Studies in Adaptation and Innovation series

Editors

Volume Editors:

Himanshu Grover

Tanveer Islam

Volume/Series Editor:

Jean Slick

Series Editor:

Jane Kushma

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Disaster and Emergency Management: Case studies in adaptation and innovation

Copyright

Dedication

List of contributors

About the series editors

Case studies in disaster and emergency management

Prevention and mitigation volume introduction

Chapter 1. Current and future directions in hazard mitigation policy

Case summary

State-of-the practice overview

Adaptation and innovation characteristics

Case description

Discussion

Conclusions

Chapter 2. Community based mitigation strategies: building resilience in rural Appalachia

Case summary

State of the practice overview

Adaptation and innovation characteristics

Case description

Community mitigation needs assessment and development of community partnerships

Community survey

Policy analysis project

Discussion

Conclusions

Appendix A: questions from the community survey administered to City of Radford residents

Chapter 3. Reducing risk through public engagement in hazard mitigation plans

Case summary

State of the practice overview

Adaptation and innovation characteristics

Case description

Summary

Conclusion

Links to plans

Chapter 4. Planning through narratives: participatory tools and disaster risk reduction

Case summary

State of the practice overview

Adaptation and innovation characteristics

Case description

Discussion

Conclusions

Recommended readings

Chapter 5. Rehabilitation as a means for building long-term resilience: A case study of Odisha Disaster Recovery Project

Case Summary

State of the practice overview

Adaptation and innovation characteristics

Case description

History of extreme events and interventions in Odisha

Odisha Disaster Recovery Project

Discussion

Chapter 6. Notes from the underground: adapting a century old apartment building in New York city's lower east side to the floodplain

Case summary

State of the practice overview

Adaptation and innovation characteristics

Case description

NYC's multifamily housing

Superstorm Sandy

Discussion

Financing resilience

Conclusion

Chapter 7. Cloud-based innovations for syndromic surveillance: lessons from the world's largest mass gatherings

Case summary

Adaptation and innovation characteristics

Conclusion

Disclosures

Chapter 8. Planning for resilient urban infrastructure: a case study of Hoboken, New Jersey

Case summary

State of the practice overview

Adaptation and innovation characteristics

Case description

Discussion

Conclusion

Interviews

Conclusion

Index

Disaster and Emergency Management: Case studies in adaptation and innovation

Series editors

Jean Slick

Disaster and Emergency Management Program, Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC, Canada

Jane Kushma

Emergency Management Program, Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, AL, United States

Forthcoming volumes in the series

• Case Studies in Disaster Response, edited by Steven Jensen, David Johnston, and Shirley Feldmann-Jensen

• Case Studies in Disaster Preparedness, edited by Joanne McGlown

Copyright

Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

ISBN: 978-0-12-809528-7

For information on all Butterworth-Heinemann publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Candice G. Janco

Acquisitions Editor: Kathryn Eryilmaz

Editorial Project Manager: Hilary Carr

Production Project Manager: Surya Narayanan Jayachandran

Cover Designer: Matthew Limbert

Typeset by TNQ Technologies

Dedication

This book is dedicated to my dad, who has always supported me, often beyond his means, and now watches over me, from heavens above. May his soul rest in peace.

–Himanshu Grover

I would like to dedicate this book in memory of my Mom and Dad and also in memory of Dr. Dennis S. Mileti (1945–2021), a colleague, mentor, leader, and pioneer for research on disaster mitigation and prevention.

–Tanveer Islam

List of contributors

Satchit Balsari,     Harvard Medical School, Lakshmi Mittal and Family South Asia Institute at Harvard, Cambridge, MA, United States

Miriam Belblidia,     Imagine Water Works, New Orleans, LA, United States

Tanya Buhler Corbin,     Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Worldwide, Daytona Beach, FL, United States

John Jacob,     Texas Community Watershed Partners, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, Houston, TX, United States

Garima Jain,     Indian Institute for Human Settlements, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

Alessandra Jerolleman,     Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, AL, United States

Celina Gauthier Lowry,     Texas Community Watershed Partners, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, Houston, TX, United States

Teja Malladi,     Indian Institute for Human Settlements, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

Nadia A. Mian,     Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, United States

Steven Mikulencak,     Texas Community Watershed Partners, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, Houston, TX, United States

Oluponmile Olonilua,     Emergency Management/Homeland Security Program, Thomas F. Freeman Honors College, Barbara Jordan Institute, Department of Political Science, BJ-ML School of Public Affairs, Texas Southern University, Houston, TX, United States

Md Yousuf Reja,     Texas Community Watershed Partners, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, Houston, TX, United States

Laurie Schoeman,     Climate and Sustainability at Enterprise Community Investment, Resilience 21, Network of Resilience Practioners, Buildling Scientist, Planner and Urban Enthusiast, New York City, NY, United States

About the series editors

Jean Slick is an Associate Professor and Program Head for the Disaster and Emergency Management graduate programs at Royal Roads University in Victoria, Canada. Prior to her work in academia, she spent 28 years in a range of leadership positions in the Canadian Red Cross. Her disaster management field experience includes work in Indonesia, Australia, the Caribbean, Central America, and the former Soviet Union. Her research focuses on how technology influences the characteristics of emergent response to disasters. She currently serves as Colead for the FEMA Case Teaching and Learning Special Interest Group.

Jane Kushma is a Professor and Director of the Doctoral Program in Emergency Management at Jacksonville State University (JSU), in Jacksonville, Alabama, USA. She also serves as the Director for the Center of Disaster and Community Resilience at JSU. She has been teaching disaster and emergency management at the college level for more than 25 years and has led curriculum development efforts at both the graduate and undergraduate levels at several institutions. She currently serves as Colead for the FEMA Case Teaching and Learning Special Interest Group and the Southeast Region Emergency Management Academic Collaborative.

Case studies in disaster and emergency management

Series introduction

Professional emergency managers in the public, private, and humanitarian sectors must be able to reconcile the routine aspects of their work with the need to adapt and innovate in the face of changing conditions. Such conditions may be expected, such as resource shortfalls, or may be due to novel situations, which may not be accounted for in existing contingency plans. In this regard, it can be said that both routine expertise and adaptive expertise are required to effectively deal with the continuum of activities that fall under the purview of emergency management. While routine expertise is often associated with efficiency, adaptive expertise reflects the ability to be both highly efficient and competent in dealing with routine tasks and problems, as well as the ability to innovate in response to changing circumstances and needs (Bransford et.al., 2006). The reader of these case study volumes will find examples that illustrate the characteristics of both routine and adaptive expertise in the emergency management field. While practice is never static, there is a well-developed body of knowledge about the characteristics of effective practice and some of the cases in this series are exemplary illustrations of the application of state-of-the-practice knowledge, guiding principles, and technical tools. Cases also illustrate the conditions and circumstances that give rise to the need to adapt and explore the characteristics of innovation in practice in the disaster and emergency management field. Motives for innovating can be related to specific emergency management needs (e.g., lack of resources, scale of response) or the need to adapt to broader changes in the environment (e.g., social media practices, new technologies, climate change).

It is important to recognize that while practitioners need to have expert knowledge, they are not independent actors. Rather, they need to be systems thinkers who can effectively communicate, coordinate, and collaborate with a range of stakeholders in order to effectively address an array of challenging, complex, and often intractable problems. Thus, the cases in these volumes will also highlight how these particular competencies for engaging with others are reflected in expert practice and establish how disaster and emergency management is a distributed function in society (Canton, 2019). Further, while the case studies in these volumes focus on disaster and emergency management as a professional practice, professional expertise must be complementary to the knowledge and skills that enable citizens to effectively contribute to response, recovery, preparedness, mitigation, or prevention activities.

Disaster and emergency management practice is conceptualized as having distinct but overlapping domains: prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) offers the following definition of these terms:

• Prevention—Activities and measures to avoid existing and new disaster risks.

• Mitigation—The lessening or minimizing of the adverse impacts of a hazardous event.

• Preparedness—The knowledge and capacities to effectively anticipate, respond to, and recover from the impacts of likely, imminent, or current disasters.

• Response—Actions taken directly before, during, or immediately after a disaster in order to save lives, reduce health impacts, ensure public safety, and meet the basic subsistence needs of the people affected.

• Recovery—The restoring or improving of livelihoods and health, as well as economic, physical, social, cultural, and environmental assets, systems, and activities, of a disaster-affected community or society, aligning with the principles of sustainable development and build back better, to avoid or reduce future disaster risk.

While there are distinctions between prevention and mitigation, in practice they are often considered together. This series includes volumes related to prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. While the series is structured in this way, these different functional areas of practice are inherently interrelated and are not always temporally distinct; throughout the series, these interlinkages will be made evident.

The conceptual framework for this series, drawn from the learning sciences, distinguishes routine and adaptive expertise. The premise is that there is a need to be able to recognize, understand, and effectively manage the routine and anticipatory aspects of disaster management, while at the same time being flexible, agile, and able to adapt, innovate, and improvise when required (Kreps & Bosworth, 2007). These different and complementary dimensions of practice have been the subject of research. A limitation of the body of literature on adaptation and innovation in disaster and emergency management practice is that much of it has been focused on response and is based on research conducted in the United States. This series addresses these gaps by presenting case studies that shed light on the reasons for and characteristics of adaptation and innovation across the spectrum of activities that are included in disaster and emergency management practice (i.e., prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery), with case studies in the volumes drawing from diverse sociopolitical and geographical contexts.

This book series is designed to support learning in multiple ways. Each volume in this series has a standard structure that includes this series introduction, a volume introduction, eight to twelve cases, and a volume conclusion. The series introduction provides a high-level overview of thinking about routine and adaptive expertise. Each volume introduction discusses the body of knowledge and competencies associated with expert practice as it pertains to the dimension of disaster and emergency management being explored in the volume and then frames the cases in relation to this body of knowledge. The volume introduction also situates the cases in relation to broader issues and themes that are of concern (e.g., sustainability, resilience, social vulnerability) and to questions faced by professionals in the field (e.g., how much risk is acceptable?). The set of cases in each volume is organized by themes and is presented using a common structure, which is designed to support learning from each individual case, as well as cross-case comparison within the volume or across the series. Each volume concludes with a cross-case synthesis of the learning about the characteristics of routine expertise and adaptive expertise offered by the cases in the volume.

This introduction to the series begins by providing a description of routine and adaptive expertise from a learning sciences perspective. An overview of the state of the practice in the disaster and emergency management field that is associated with routine expertise will then be presented before exploring the ways adaptation and innovation have been conceptualized in the disaster and emergency management field. The series introduction concludes with some suggestions about how to approach the volumes in this series. Readers are encouraged to consider how these ideas are reflected in and across the case studies in a volume or the series, as well as in their own practice or research.

Routine vs. adaptive expertise from a learning sciences perspective

The distinction between routine and adaptive expertise has a foundation in the learning sciences literature. The learning sciences are an interdisciplinary field made up of such disciplines as neuroscience, linguistics, education, computer science, cognitive science, data analytics, instructional design, psychology, and anthropology with a focus on learning and learning innovations. This approach to understanding expertise recognizes there is a distinction between how novices and experts solve problems (Bransford et al., 2006; Hatano & Inagaki, 1986). Further, there are differences in types of problems and problem-solving methods across different fields of study and practice (Donald, 2002; Jonassen, 2010). The characteristics of problems dealt with by emergency management professionals require both routine and adaptive expertise, with routine expertise providing the foundational knowledge for dealing with common problems, and adaptive expertise being required because of the nature of problems, limits to planning, or special opportunities.

Much of what professionals do is solve problems. From a learning sciences perspective, a problem can be defined as an uncertain situation (Jonassen, 2010) related to a gap or barrier between a goal state and one's present state (Schwartz et al., 2005, p. 41). Real-world problems are inherently situated in a specific context and there is social value in solving the problem (Jonassen, 2004). For example, a disaster preparedness problem could be the gap between the current state vs. the desired state of preparedness in a given context, and addressing this problem would be of value to all of those who would benefit from an increased state of preparedness. While in some instances a problem is known, in other situations, particularly with more ill-structured and complex problems, a challenge can be in both defining the problem as well as in finding a solution (Jonassen, 2004).

Problems can be characterized by their structure, context, complexity, dynamicity, type, and domain specificity (Jonassen, 2010). Problems can vary on a continuum of being well-structured or ill-structured. Well-structured problems are static, have clear inputs and a goal, and generally have one right answer (Jonassen, 2010). In contrast, ill-structured problems have elements that are unknown, can be solved in multiple ways, and may have subjective success criteria (Jonassen, 2010). Many disaster and emergency management problems are ill-structured. For example, in addressing the problem of how to reduce the risk of flooding in a coastal community, there are both static and dynamic elements that contribute to risk, different stakeholder perceptions of the risk and related problems, various options for how to reduce risk, and different criteria about what success would look like. Further, problems are geographically and temporally situated in a specific context, and the context influences both the way a problem is defined and how it can be solved (Jonassen, 2010). For example, shelter needs following an earthquake, while sharing some similarities, will be different depending on whether the event happened in Haiti or Christchurch, as will options for dealing with shelter needs between these contexts. In response contexts, problems can also be temporally bound, with hazard impact occurring at different times of day and seasons that create very different types of problems. Problem complexity, which is related to the degree of structuredness, is influenced by internal factors such as a problem solver's knowledge about the problem and possible methods for resolution, as well as external factors including the number of issues and variables associated with a problem, and the interrelationship and stability of these elements (Jonassen, 2010). Problems can also be static or dynamic, and an example of a dynamic problem context was clearly seen with the unfolding of events during the 2011 Japanese triple disaster of an earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear crises. Problems can also be classified by their types with different types requiring different approaches to problem-solving (Jonassen, 2010). Examples of types include decision-making problems, policy problems, and design problems. Finally, problems have some degree of domain specificity, meaning that problem types and approaches to problem-solving differ across professions and disciplines (e.g., social work vs. engineering).

Within the disaster and emergency management field problems commonly deal with current or future risk and have some degree of uncertainty, ambiguity, and changing conditions (Mendonça et al., 2014; Wachtendorf, 2004; Webb et al., 1999). Problems in a response context can also be time sensitive. Further, there are often ethical dimensions to problems, particularly when resources are limited (Etkin, 2020). The type of problem differs depending on whether it relates to prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. For example, a structural mitigation problem might be design-based, and a nonstructural mitigation problem might be policy-based, while a response problem might be related to trouble-shooting or decision-making. Some ill-structured and complex problems faced in the disaster and emergency management field (e.g., how to reduce social vulnerability) are what is termed wicked problems. These types of problems vary in terms of the complexity related to defining a problem and its solution, as well as the number of stakeholders and the nature of their relationship relative to the problem (Alford & Head, 2017). Addressing complex problems requires the integration of different types of knowledge and expertise. For example, improving tsunami preparedness may require different types of expertise to model and map tsunami risk in a given location, develop warning systems, and communicate information about tsunami risk and protective actions to be taken.

Expert problem-solving is characterized by an ability to efficiently deal with routine problems, with expertise being developed over time and through experience (Hatano & Inagaki, 1986). Experts have prior knowledge, skills, and experience which allows them to quickly recognize a problem and find a successful resolution while minimizing failures (Ericsson & Smith, 2002; Schwartz et al., 2005). Experts differ based on their amount as well as the type of knowledge and experience. Expertise is also relative (Gube & Lajoi, 2020). Given that disaster and emergency management is inherently a place-based and situated practice, expertise does not always transfer to new or novel types of problems (e.g., different hazard type; mitigation vs. response problem) or contexts (e.g., urban vs. rural; different country contexts). However, efficiency in dealing with new problems or novel contexts can be developed and supported by training in a simulated environment, which helps turn non-routine, difficult-to-solve problems into routine problems that can be solved quickly and easily (Schwartz et al., 2005, p. 42). Another way to develop expertise and efficiency in responding to problems in novel contexts in the disaster and emergency management field is to deploy personnel to different disaster sites to help them gain new experience. Similarly, taking on a different role, either in a training situation or in real life, can further develop the expertise needed to support routine problem-solving, as role adaptation is common in disaster contexts.

When faced with a new or novel problem or a problem in a new domain, experts need to draw on their existing knowledge and skills to find an innovative way to deal with a problem with the resources at hand (Carbonell, 2014; Schwartz et al., 2005); dealing with these types of situations requires adaptive expertise. Fig. 1 illustrates two dimensions of adaptive expertise. Metacognitive skills, which support effective learning from experience, contribute to the development of adaptive expertise (Fazey et al., 2007). Through experience in applying knowledge about how to do something (procedural knowledge), knowledge about why things work or are done a certain way, as well as expected variations and how to deal with constraints is developed (conceptual knowledge; Hatano & Inagaki, 1986). The development of an understanding of the principles behind how and when things are done is based on having a deep understanding of fundamental characteristics of the objective and intended outcome of an activity, as well as the context in which the activity is carried out (Hatano & Inagaki, 1986). This type of deep understanding of the contextual application of principles that inform routine practice is foundational to adaptive expertise which requires being able to effectively vary, modify, or invent alternative courses of action, based on problem scenarios encountered (Hatano & Inagaki, 1986). While efficiency in solving a new or novel problem may still be the desired goal, innovation may require a movement away from what is momentarily most efficient for the individual or organization (Schwartz et al., 2005, p. 43). A challenge in responding to novel problems may be letting go of assumptions based on prior knowledge and experience (Schwartz et al., 2005).

Figure 1  Two dimensions of adaptive expertise. Reprinted from Foundations and opportunities for an interdisciplinary science of learning (p. 27), by J.D. Bransford et al., 2006, in R.K. Sawyer (Ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Learning Sciences, 2006, Cambridge University Press. Copyright 2006 Cambridge University Press. Reprinted with permission (permission pending).

The human capacity to reflect on past experience and abstract from this experience also enables prediction and the ability to anticipate and proactively adapt; this is a uniquely human form of adaptation (von Glasersfeld, 1998). When faced with significant threats, such as climate change, a pandemic, or a catastrophic earthquake, the ability to proactively anticipate, adapt, and innovate becomes an essential skill to help mitigate risk. In these types of situations, routine expertise still provides the foundational knowledge and skill needed to address a complex problem; however, the ability to proactively adapt requires the ability to envision alternative future outcomes and then find a way to generate the cause of change required to achieve the desired outcome (von Glasersfeld, 1998).

This distinction between routine and adaptive expertise within the learning sciences is also reflected in the disaster and emergency management field, where the term improvisation is used to describe innovations made under time pressure (Wachtendorf, 2004). For example, Tierney (2009) noted, Improvisation does not mean inventing actions on the spot or deviating entirely from pre-planned arrangements but rather involves understanding why, when, and how to go beyond those arrangements as circumstances require...improvisation builds upon and leverages prior response-related knowledge while going beyond that knowledge (p. 27). Thus, knowledge from the learning sciences about adaptive expertise is complementary and extends disciplinary perspectives that have been used to date to explore the characteristics of adaptation and innovation in disaster and emergency management practice. The next sections of this introduction will explore routine and adaptive expertise in more depth from the perspective of the literature and practice in the disaster and emergency management field.

Routine expertise in disaster and emergency management practice

Within any given field of professional practice, there is an associated body of knowledge that is foundational to expert practice. Historically, expertise within the emergency management field came from practical experience; those working in the field often came from related fields of practice, such as police, fire, and military. It was not until the 1980's that emergency management higher education programs started to be developed and offer an educational pathway into the profession. This growth in postsecondary programs has paralleled and supported the professionalization of emergency management. Formal education programs in the disaster and emergency management field now include certificate, diploma, undergraduate, and graduate programs. Other types of training programs (e.g., ICS training) and disaster exercises also provide the opportunity to develop knowledge and skills. Beginning efforts have been made to describe and classify the core body of knowledge and competencies needed by professionals in the disaster and emergency management field (Feldman-Jensen et al., 2017). As disaster and emergency management advances as a profession, the need for both experiential knowledge as well as formal education and training is recognized. For example, the International Association of Emergency Managers now requires evidence of formal education and training, as well as field experience in the requirements for becoming a Certified Emergency Manager.

The body of knowledge to support expert practice has been informed by academic study about human and organizational experience with hazards and disasters, as well as lessons learned and practices advanced based on experience in the field. Concerted effort to study human experience with crises and disasters was initiated during the Cold War era (1960's) by Quarantelli, Dynes, and Hass who launched the Disaster Research Center, which started at Ohio State University and is now housed at the University of Delaware. During the next decade, the Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center was founded by Gilbert White at the University of Colorado at Boulder to implement recommendations from the landmark Assessment of Natural Hazards Research in the United States. The recommendations included the establishment of a national information clearinghouse and a charge to connect the academic hazards research, emergency management, and policy communities. There are now other disaster and emergency management related research centers at different universities across the globe. The knowledge generated through research has helped to dispel myths and to inform practice.

The advancement of professional practice has also been guided by the development of policies, standards, and principles. At a global level, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction provides a framework for increasing resilience to disasters. The SPHERE Standards (Sphere Project, 2011) were launched in the late 1990's with the aim of improving humanitarian response to disasters. Other global standards such as the Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (2014) have followed. Agreement on foundational principles to guide practice have included the Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red