FLOOD03837

• County: Statewide
• Basin: Statewide
• Title: Confronting Natural Disasters
• Date: 11/2/1987
• Prepared By: Natural Resource Council
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Educational/Technical/Reference Information

28

ies of recovery in several communities have identi-
fied some characteristic errors as well as exam pIes
of more successful experiences. However, further
study is needed of both the short- and long-term
economic consequences of various recovery pat-
terns and their effects on political stability and
cultural development.
Distributing the economic loss among a larger
unaffected community lessens the severe eco-
nomic impacts of natural catastrophes, although
this strategy does not directly reduce casualties or
damage. Insurance is one common vehicle for
redistribution of loss. However, because of the
magnitude of the loss from many catastrophes,
the capacity of insurance and financial institutions
may be inadequate to cover it. Other forms of
redistribution are economic assistance from
charitable and private disaster organizations and
from governments, through tax receipts and inter-
national grants.

INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

Responsibilities for hazard reduction are so
widely distributed among such a variety of orga-
nizations that coordination - even for sharing of
information - is a paramount problem. Much of
the essential activity in reducing the impacts of
natural hazards is carried out as a sideline by
organizations whose main purposes have little to
do with hazard reduction. For example, public
education for hazard reduction is carried out by
the schools, the mass media, voluntary associ a-

tions, and employers. Equipment for research and
rescue is borrowed from building contractors, and
its nature and locations are seldom known by
those directing emergency response. To remedy
this situation, government must take a more
active coordinating role. Leadership of public
officials is essential at all stages of hazard reduc-
tion and emergency response.
Because most disasters occur intermittently,
creating organizations solely for hazard reduction
is not feasible. Consequently, sustaining and
directing work done as a sideline by organizations
with other primary purposes is a problem. Case
studies show that difficulties arise in the relations
between professional and lay groups; among
local, national, and international organizations;
between general and special-purpose organiza-
tions; between ad hoc and permanent organiza-
tions; and among all these groups. Much remains
to be learned about promoting communication
among organizations and encouraging patterns of
coordination that do not stifle the groups in-
volved. A key to reducing the impacts of a hazard
is understanding how organizations perform be-
fore and during an event. This will come only
from systematic observation of many institutions
as rhey plan for and respond to different hazards.

NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

One clear conclusion of this analysis is that there
are many more opportunities to develop disaster
avoidance approaches than there are efforts to