|
<br />
<br />ROGER A. P\l?LKE. JR.
<br />422
<br />forecasters on how to interpret and use appropriately the additional infonnation that
<br />
<br />is generated. . ht be im roYed include the use of ad-
<br />Other areas where flood f~reca~tfs ~Ig I I' me p(as well as to forecast) areas
<br />h I "e toldently In rea-l . d
<br />vanced radar tee ~o Ogl S i f lI~runoff models, improvements In ala
<br />of heavy rainfaH, \mproY~ments. to fa n ,a" adiosondes, and ground stations
<br />'h' baSinS usmg sate Hes, r . ofi
<br />collection Wit river b (aluable to society any sCient! c or
<br />(Krsz.ys1.tofoWlcl., 1995). Of course, to ~ mas :1 be accompanied by commensu-
<br />technological advances in flood forecastto.g. mu ocesses of warning and response.
<br />rate ability to use those advances in t~~ declsl~n P; ability to use flood forecasts has
<br />Growing evidence suggests that deCISion. ma ers
<br />not kept pace with technical advances (Plelke, 1999).
<br />
<br />ELL UNDERSTOOD
<br />2.5, SOCIETAL VULNERABILITY TO FLOODS IS W
<br />
<br />. 1994 b the Federal Interagcm.:y Fl~)odplain
<br />One of the gOa,\5 recommended In . .Y. V 'fied National Program IS to 're-
<br />k F ecommended In Its m f
<br />Management Tas oree r d the risks to the natural resources 0
<br />duce by half the risk~ to life and pro~~y an31) Th~ Task Force recognized that in
<br />the Nation's floodplams' (FIFMTF: 1 : P, f"h t risk must first be understood.
<br />' k b ha.lf the dimenSIOns 0 a . f " A
<br />order to reduce ns s. Y, d h ilatian of an inventDry 0 1I0DI,i.
<br />Therefore, the Task Force recommende tden~~~~I resources by 200~. The reason
<br />plain structures, areas ~or develo.pm:n~. an t uncertainiy that exists in attempting to
<br />that such an inventory 1S needed 15.t e z;eta that is subject to flooding' and 'there
<br />determine the total area of the Untted S a es. th Un',ted States' (FIFMTF, t 992,
<br />~ fat flood damages In e . .
<br />is no complete recorv 0 p s 'Ih curacy how many people mhablt
<br />'h e do not know WI ac
<br />pp, 1-2 and 3-15). In sort, W rt in U.S. 110odp\ains. Consequently,
<br />and the quantity, value, and types of prope y oct
<br />societal vulnerability to floods is poorly understo .
<br />
<br />Societal Vulnerability " ulnerabilit to extreme weather and climate
<br />Once it was thought that ~ socletYn se~ent's char;cteristics and incidence in places
<br />events was simply a function of a. . I ' s Ihat a predictiol1 Df an extreme
<br />> k Th' led 10 cone US Ion. <
<br />where people were at TIS. IS. I e ineering solution (e.g., a levee system
<br />event, coupled with a teChnOlogiC: or s~gof a pending severe storm), would be
<br />to prevent floods or an acc~r.ate ore~a Dn 1995). But as scientific and technical
<br />~ufficient to reduce vulnerablhty (A~d rs ~ d ades so too have ~osses of human
<br />tools and lechniques have adv~nce~ Jfl ~~c~n f eeclrem~ events in the Uniled.States
<br />\..... 'uusc 01 the Impacts 0 )( . f h 'n
<br />lives and property uc:t.: . Who 1994) '" The implication 0 t e tWI
<br />and' arDund the world (Pielke, 1997~~. .nen. and, 'n' creasing losses signaled that
<br />. . h ieal SophlSlleal1D .
<br />trends of Increasmg tee n. . . r d b the perspective of nature.-causmg~
<br />vulnerability had more to It than Imp Ie y
<br />disaster, There were obviously other factors at work.
<br />
<br />Loss of life was greater in the United States. and worldWIde in the early decades of this century.
<br />
<br />NINE FALLACIES OF FLOODS
<br />
<br />423
<br />
<br />
<br />A more aCCurate conception of societal vulnerability emphas'izes the role that
<br />people play in creating rhejr Own vulnerabilities, as well as the role of others:
<br />Anderson (1995, p. 45) summarizes a number of the factors responsible for human-
<br />caUsed~ vulnerability.
<br />
<br />Whereas previous assessments focused on acts of nature that CDme from out.
<br />side human agency, !lIter assessments acknowledged that it is largely human
<br />actions, deciSions, and choices thai result in people's vulnerability to natural
<br />eVents. Choices about where to live (or, in some cases, the lack of choice
<br />due Co political, economic, or social position), decisions about where to 10.
<br />eate a chemical plant, and aets of cutting forests, farming marginal lands, or
<br />evading building codes are examples of how humans cause a 'natural' hazard
<br />to become a disaster. Humans make themselves _ or, quite onen, others _
<br />vulnerable.
<br />
<br />A broad definition of 'vulnerability' .';eek.~ to caplure an 'aggregate measure of hu-
<br />m<lll wcJlilrc lhi.1l ;fHegr<t(cs ~l1vironm~Olat, social, economic, and poli(ical e^PQsure
<br />(0 a range of potential harmful perturbations' (Bohle et al., 1994). An understand-
<br />ing of vulnerability requires integration of both irs phYSical and societal aspects. As
<br />Chambers (1989, p. 1) notes that vulnerabBity has 'two sides', an 'external side Df
<br />risks., shock!o; and stress. and iln intern.al side which is defenselessness, me~ming
<br />a lack of means to cope without damaging loss', Vulnerabiliry to a climare- or
<br />weather~refated event is thus a function Df bDth society's exposure and of an event's
<br />incidence. Or as a J 966 Federal Task Force eloquently sCated: 'Floods are an act of
<br />God; Rood damages result from the aCls of [people)' (TFFFCP, 1966. p, 14),
<br />Plood events in recent years provide vivid evidence Chat people and property in
<br />the United SCalCS rClllain extremely vulnerable fo flood:.:. However, data is hH.;k-
<br />ing (or unavailable) that would allow <1ccurate <md useful determination of the
<br />trends in and current je,,'el of societal vulnerability 10 floods; The '1992 assessment
<br />of floodplain management in the United Stares found that 'the actual amount of
<br />United States land in Hood plains has not been clearly determined, nor has the
<br />amount of propeny and O{her economic investments at risk lo flooding been finnJy
<br />established' (FIFMTF, 1992, p. 3~'). A review of various estimates of floodprone
<br />regions 1n the United States shows considerable disagreemenl as to the arei.l.l ex-
<br />lem of fJoodprone regions, the number of people who inhabit those areas, and the
<br />amount of property at risk to flooding. In 1942, Gilbert White eSlimated that 35
<br />million acres of V,S, land was subjecI 10 Rooding (White. 1945), In 1955. Hoyt
<br />and Langbein (955) estimated that 10 million peopJe Jive Or work wirhin the
<br />nation's 50 million acres of Iloodprone land. The 1955 eslinwte equates to 7%
<br />of the Population living on flood prone regions which comprise about 3% of the
<br />United Stares land area. A '978 study estimated that 4.5 million households were
<br />in flDod hazard areas. A 1987 study classified about 94 million acres of land as
<br />
<br />* For discussions of vulnerability see Patm ((99Q), Ale1..an<kr (1<}9\), and Burton, el <I'. f I 99J I.
<br />More recently see Dow ~nd Downing (1995).
<br />
|