Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />