<br />
<br />ROGER A PIELKE. JR.
<br />422 '
<br />forecasters on how to interpret and use appropriately the additional information that
<br />
<br />is generated. . ht be improved include the use of ad-
<br />Other areas where flood foreca~ls ~lg I" (as well as to forecast) areas
<br />I . t 'dentlfy In rea - lme .
<br />vanced radar lech~o ogles 0 I ainfall-runoff models. improvements in data
<br />of heavy rainfall, Improvements. to r II' diosondes and ground stations
<br />. . b sins uSing sate ([es. fa . , 'fi
<br />collection wlt~ river a be most valllable to society any scltmtl cor
<br />(Krsz.ysztofowlcz, 1995). Of CQurse, (0 . t be accompanied by commensu-
<br />technological advances in flood ~or~c~~;'~i:U;rotesses of warning and response.
<br />rate abiWy to use those advances In t. ~ I k . ability \0 use flood forecasts has
<br />Growing evidence suggests that declsJOo. ma ers
<br />nol kept pace with technical advances (PJelke, J 999),
<br />
<br />2.5. SOCIETAL VULNERABILITY TO ROODS IS WELL UNDERSTOOD
<br />
<br />. 994 b the Fcden.lI Interagency Floodplain
<br />One of the goals recommended In dl d' .Y. Un',lied Natlonnl Program is to 're.
<br />~ k F e recommen emits f
<br />Management las ore d th rl'sks to the natural resources 0
<br />' k 1', nd property an e , ,
<br />duce by half the f1S ~ t~ I e a 94.31). The Task Porce recognized that In
<br />the Nation's floodplains (FIFMTF,.19 : p f 'hat risk must first be understood.
<br />' k b half the dimenSIOns o. f fl od
<br />Qrder to reduce f1S s Y, d the com ilation of an inventory 0 0 .
<br />Therefore, the Task Force recommendte nd natur~J resources by 2005. The r~ason
<br />plain structures, areas ~or devetopm:n: :eat uncertalnty that exists in attemptmg to
<br />that such an inventory IS needed IS ,t e ;tates that is subject to flooding' and 'there
<br />determine the total area of the Umted . the United States' (FlFMTF, 1992,
<br />is no complete record of past flood damages ~n(h curacy how many people inhabit
<br />'h e do not know WI ac I
<br />pp, 1 ~2 and 3-15). [n sort, W rt in U S floodplains. Consequent y,
<br />and the quantity, value, and types of prope y ..
<br />societal vulnerability (0 floods is poorly understood.
<br />
<br />Societal Vulnerability I b'I', '0 extreme weather and climate
<br />h h ociety's vu nera II Y .
<br />Once it was thoug t t at ~ s f t' characteristics and incidence In places
<br />e\lenls was. simply a fu?cl1on ~ ,a~ e~~no~~IUSiOr1S that a prediction of an ex.lreme
<br />where people were al fisk. ThiS e { .' 'ng ,olut,'on (e g a levee system
<br />. ~h I 'cal or engmeen . .,
<br />e\'cnt, coupted with a tee.; no Ogl ~ aSl of a pending severe storm), would be
<br />to prevent floods or an acc~r.ate o~~~rsoll '995) But as scientific and technical
<br />suffi.;:ient to reduce vulnerab,lflY (AI. 't decad'es so too have tosses of human
<br />tools and techniques have adv~nce~ J1l :e.c~n I. trem~ events in the United. States
<br />b ~C' u~c oj the 1Il1p.lCls 0 ex . f h , 'n
<br />live:\ and property C <l : . White \994),. The impEcatlon 0 t e WI
<br />Ilnd around the world (Plclke, 1997~,. . . and increasing losses signaled that
<br />. h ical sophistication .
<br />trends of increastng tee n. . . r d b the perspective of nature~caUSlng~
<br />vulnerability had more to It than Imp Ie y k
<br />disaster. There were obviously other factors at wor .
<br />, 'h I decades of this century.
<br />' h Uniled Slales and worldWIde tn t e ear y. j
<br />Lo:.s of life was greater In Ie.
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />
<br />NINE FALLACiES OF FLOODS
<br />
<br />423
<br />
<br />A more accurate-conception of'societal vulnerability empha5'izes lhe role that
<br />people play in creating their oWn vulnerabilities, as weB as the role of others. *
<br />Anderson (1995, p. 45) summarizes a number of the factors responsjbJe for human4
<br />caused-vu/nerabil ity.
<br />
<br />Whereas previous asseSSments focused on acts of nature thac come from out4
<br />side human agency, later assessments acknowledged that it is largely human
<br />actions, decisions, and choices that result in people's vuJnerability to natural
<br />events. Choices about where to live (or, in Some cases, the lack of choice
<br />due to political, economic, or social pOSition), decisions about where to lo~
<br />cate a Chemical plant, and acts of cutting forests, farming marginal lands, or
<br />evading building codes are examples of how humans cause a 'naturaJ' hazard
<br />to become a disaster. Humans make the.mselves _ or, quite often, others _
<br />vulnerable.
<br />
<br />A broad definition of 'vulnerability' seeks to capture an 'aggreg<lte mea.'iure of hu-
<br />m1Jn welfan:: that integrates environmental, socia], economic, and polilicaJ e,v'posl1re
<br />to a range of potential harmful perturbations' (Bohle et at, 1994). An understand4
<br />ing of vulnerability requires integration of both its physical and societal aspecls. As
<br />Chambers 0989, p. I} notes that vulnerability has 'two sides', an 'external side of
<br />risks, shocks and SCress . .. and an internal side which is defenselessness, meilning
<br />a lack of means to cope without damaging {oss'. Vulnerability to a climate. or
<br />weather-related event is thus a function ofbo(h society's exposure and of an event's
<br />incidence, Or as a 1966 Federal Task Force eloquenHy stated: 'Floods are an act of
<br />God; flood damages resull from Ihe acts of [people)' (TFFFCP, 1966, p, 14),
<br />Flood events in recent years provide vivid evidence that people and property in
<br />the United States remain extremely vulnerable to floods. However, data is Ial;k-
<br />il\g (Qr unavail~ble) that would allow accurate and useful de:terminalion of the
<br />trends in and current le~'e1 or-societal .vulnerability-to noods~ The '1992 aSSeSsment
<br />of floodplain management in the United Slales found that 'the actual amOUnt of
<br />United States land in flood plains has not been clearly determined, nor has the
<br />amount of property and other economic investmems at risk lo flooding been finn!y
<br />established' (FIFMTF, 1992, p. 341), A review of vnrious estimates of floodprone
<br />regions in the United Stutes shows considerable disagreemenl as 10 (he areal ex-
<br />tem of ftoodprone regions, the number of people who inhabit those areas, and the
<br />amount of properly at risk to flooding. [n 1942, Gilbert White estimated that 35
<br />million acres of U.s. land was subject lO flooding (While, ]945). In 1955, Hoy'
<br />and Langbein (1955) estimated that 10 million people live or work within the
<br />nation's, 50 million acrcs of floodpronc land. The 1955 estimate equates to 7o/c
<br />of the population living on Rood prone regions which comprise about 3% of the
<br />United St.ates land area. A 1978 study estimated that 4.5 million households were
<br />in flood hazard areas. A 1987 srudy classified about 94 million aCres of land as
<br />
<br />.. FOr discussions of vutnerabiJilY see Palm (1990). Alexander (1991). and Burton. el 1.1/. (/993).
<br />More receOlly see Dow and Downing (1995).
<br />
|