This Year of the Ocean document was prepared as a background discussion paper and does not necessarily reflect the policies of the U.S. Government or the U.S. Government agencies that participated in its preparation.

Destructive natural system events that impact coastal areas can be either episodic or chronic. Together, these types of events define what is meant by natural coastal hazards. The destructive potential of such events is often made much worse by the increasing amount of development along the nation’s coastline.

A variety of natural hazards regularly threaten the nation’s coastal inhabitants. Severe meteorological events such as hurricanes, tropical cyclones, and nor’easters are particularly harsh on coastal areas, often resulting in damages from high winds, storm surge, flooding, and shoreline erosion. Tsunamis, whose destructive force is characterized by potentially devastating flood inundation, are uniquely coastal events resulting from offshore earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic activity. Coastal locations are also subjected to the impacts of long-term hazards such as chronic coastal erosion, potential sea-level rise, and global climate change. Other hazards impacting coastal areas include biological events such as red tides and harmful algal blooms.

Coastal hazard events can significantly affect or even alter the natural environment, but their impacts are generally not considered to be "disastrous" unless they involve damages to human populations and infrastructure. Many of the coastal ecosystems that are particularly fragile and sensitive to the cumulative impacts of human development are also naturally fluid and generally capable of adapting to hazard impacts over time. When people and property are not present, hazards are merely natural processes that alter the environment as they have throughout the earth’s history. When people and property are present, however, the impacts of hazards on the developed and natural environments are viewed quite differently. The primary focus no longer is on the natural processes associated with a major hazard event, but instead on the disastrous results that can be measured by lives lost, property damages, and economic and environmental impacts. Hazard impacts on the natural environment become more devastating because human development has altered the ability of natural systems to recover from such events. Natural hazard events can also spawn secondary hazards such as sewage releases or hazardous materials spills that are particularly damaging to coastal environments.

The impacts of natural hazards are becoming increasingly costly and devastating. Experts believe that the statistics on disaster losses continue to rise worldwide due to a combination of factors that include a rise in the number of hazard events due to global climate change or natural cyclical trends, and an increase in human exposure in hazardous locations. Some of the increase in disaster damages worldwide could also be the result of improvements in disaster monitoring and reporting capabilities, particularly in developing countries. Worldwide, all three factors may come into play, but disaster loss increases in the United States seem to be most closely tied to increased human exposure in high risk areas such as the nation’s coasts.

Growth trends in coastal areas have the obvious consequences of increasing human exposure to natural hazards. The . United States has an expansive and diverse coastline that supports a disproportionate percentage of the nation’s population. The nation’s 451 coastal counties contain just over 50 percent of the U.S. population, yet only account for about 20 percent of the total U.S. land area. During the last decade, 17 of the 20 fastest growing counties were located along the coast. In addition, 19 of the 20 most densely populated counties in the nation are coastal counties, as are 16 of the 20 counties with the largest number of new housing units under construction.

Coastal locations were some of the first settled in this country, and have always accounted for a major percentage of the overall U.S. population. Their role as primary centers for transportation, tourism, recreation, commercial fishing, and other industry has ensured that coastal areas remain a crucial segment of the nation’s overall economy. In the past, larger coastal populations were generally centered in the major port cities. Natural hazards affecting these cities were sometimes devastating, but there were fewer locations to potentially be affected. As coastal populations have increased, cities have become larger and more numerous. With the growth of coastal tourism, it is no longer necessary to rely exclusively on ports and industry to fuel economic growth in even the most remote coastal areas. There are now many more coastal locations with significant populations and property resources exposed to potentially devastating impacts from natural hazards.

Disaster losses in the United States are currently estimated conservatively at $50 billion annually. Losses in 1970 were estimated at approximately $4.5 billion annually. These figures only account for direct costs. They do not include indirect losses such as short and long-term economic and social impacts that many experts believe could more than double these cited figures. Of the estimated $500 billion in disaster losses between 1975 and 1994, 80 percent were imposed by meteorological events and 10 percent were the result of earthquakes and volcanoes. About 17 percent ($85 billion) of the estimated losses were insured. Since 1989, approximately $20 billion in losses have been paid by the federal government in presidentially declared disasters. It is interesting to note that while losses from major catastrophic events are rising, the majority of hazards-related damages result from smaller events that do not qualify for federal assistance and which are not insured, leaving victims primarily responsible for the costs.

The turning point in focusing national attention on disaster losses began with Hurricane Hugo and the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 and has been followed in rapid succession by major catastrophic events including Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki in 1992, the Midwest floods in 1993, and the Northridge earthquake in 1994. In recent years, several hurricanes including Hurricanes Opal, Marilyn, and Fran have significantly impacted the Southeast, Gulf, and Caribbean coasts, while the Pacific Islands and the West Coast have been pounded by Typhoons Omar and Paka and numerous El Nino-induced events. Destructive and costly ongoing flooding and erosion along the Great Lakes coast associated with higher than average lake levels and coastal storms has also occurred. The impacts from all of these large-scale events are having a profound effect on public policy and perceptions concerning hazards.

Given the significant costs of the nation’s catastrophic natural disasters, focus has shifted in recent years to expand beyond emergency preparedness and response to include a more long-term emphasis on disaster loss reduction. Hazard mitigation is the term used to describe activities that minimize either an individual’s or a community’s vulnerability to future disaster damages. Mitigation is often characterized as either structural (e.g., strengthening buildings or constructing protective devices) or non-structural (e.g., land use planning or incentive-based insurance rates). In a broader context, however, loss reduction or hazard mitigation can more accurately be described as a long-range goal or objective with many potential strategies for accomplishment.

Hazard mitigation is defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as "actions taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from hazards and their effects." The primary goals for mitigation include ensuring that fewer Americans become victims of disaster, reducing the costs associated with disaster, and shifting the burden of disaster costs from the public to those who choose to live in hazardous locations. In 1995, FEMA developed the National Mitigation Strategy to encourage partnerships between the public and private sectors with the specific goal of significantly reducing the impacts of natural hazards by the year 2010. In 1996, the President’s National Science and Technology Council Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources developed the Natural Disaster Reduction Plan for the nation to complement FEMA’s National Mitigation Strategy.

Concurrent with FEMA’s aggressive stance on hazard mitigation, many federal agencies with hazards responsibilities, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of Defense (DoD), and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) also have programs and initiatives utilizing their own hazards information, scientific and technological capabilities, and resources to support a variety of hazards loss reduction activities.

Throughout the marine community and in coastal regions, the USCG works to spread the mitigation message for any impending coastal hazard. In many cases this includes direct personal contacts to ensure adequate actions are underway to secure port areas, or conducting harbor patrols to identify resources at risk and recommend specific mitigation measures as appropriate. The USCG, along with numerous federal agencies including the DoD and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, also participate in national response efforts for major disasters and contribute to national disaster planning activities.

The USGS, through the Coastal Marine Geology Program, conducts scientific research in the nation’s coastal zone and in adjoining continental shelf regions. The broad goal is to collect information that will improve the understanding of geologic hazards, environmental conditions, biologic habitats, earth science processes, and energy and mineral resources. Such information in turn can help managers make informed decisions about wise use and protection of coastal and marine resources.

One of the most important details concerning hazard mitigation is that the vast majority of disaster reduction activities must be implemented at the local level. Most of the techniques that can reduce natural hazard vulnerability involve specific actions that can only be carried out by individuals or local communities. One of the key challenges facing national-level mitigation efforts is making the information useful at the local level while recognizing the vast differences in local conditions, both physical and political.

Disaster management has been described in the past as a cycle, divided into four major categories, including preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. While these categories provide a good framework for discussing different aspects of emergency management, it is somewhat misleading to discuss hazard mitigation as a separate, distinct "phase" of disaster management.

Hazard mitigation has been described as a primary goal or objective to reduce future disaster vulnerability. This goal can be achieved through various strategies implemented throughout the preparedness, response, and recovery phases of disaster management. Common elements required to successfully integrate mitigation into all phases of emergency management include developing a better understanding of the various hazards and their potential impacts, and identifying options and opportunities within each phase to accomplish loss reduction objectives. Improvements in these areas will require a comprehensive multi-disciplinary approach to disaster management involving various degrees of research, science, technical resources, and education, as well as public policy development and implementation.

Over the years, progress has been made in reducing hazard impacts through better predictions, forecasts, and warnings, particularly for meteorological hazards such as coastal storms and floods. General improvements in hurricane and tsunami prediction, and river and lake level forecasting, have been possible using the latest in computer modeling technology. NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS) is currently working with several new technological systems that are intended to significantly improve future flood forecasting capabilities. The NWS is pursuing improvements to flood warning systems that utilize two-way communication capabilities and provide real-time information to residents in flood prone areas. The USGS is also pursuing the use of new data collection and mapping technologies to provide near real-time information on storm events.

While research and technological advances have resulted in improvements in prediction and forecasting capabilities, there continues to be a need for advancements that could further mitigate disaster-related expenditures. Better and more accurate hurricane landfall predictions could save millions of dollars in evacuation costs, while longer range flood forecasting could result in longer lead times necessary to undertake adequate property protection and mitigation measures. There is also a need for a comprehensive and coordinated national strategy for hazard warnings. Current warning practices are highly fragmented among different agencies and are usually hazard specific, requiring the public to rely on multiple information sources in addressing different types of hazards. A more coordinated national strategy could help minimize public confusion and maximize the use of limited public resources.

Progress has also been made in reducing hazard impacts through better emergency preparedness and response activities. The vast majority of people dealing with disasters at the state and local level are emergency response personnel such as fire, police, and medical staff, along with disaster managers and planners who devote the bulk of their efforts to disaster preparedness and response activities. FEMA provides funding to help state and local governments maintain emergency preparedness programs and participate in activities such as developing disaster plans, conducting disaster drills, and implementing public education and awareness campaigns.

A key opportunity exists to incorporate hazard mitigation concepts into the disaster preparedness and response phases of emergency management. The primary focus of emergency management has previously been on how to prepare and respond to disaster events, not on how to manage the hazards that can sometimes cause disasters. A shift in emphasis from "disaster" or "emergency" management to "hazards" management could help to ensure that planning activities are broadened to address the hazards that always face communities rather than just the disasters that sometimes strike them. Many of the challenges that need to be overcome in implementing local hazard mitigation stem from the fact that hazards receive little attention until there is a disaster.

In the past, the implementation of hazard mitigation activities has been closely linked to the post-disaster recovery and reconstruction phase of emergency management. Not only are hazard vulnerabilities in a post-disaster situation more obvious from the damages incurred, but the opportunity exists to rebuild in ways that should make them less vulnerable in the future. Another major factor in encouraging post-disaster hazard mitigation is the availability of money to help support such initiatives. FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) sets aside a percentage of disaster damage reimbursements to fund these types of projects.

Every major disaster brings new experiences and lessons about recovery and reconstruction processes. A major challenge in addressing these lessons from a national perspective is that most of the responsibility for setting and implementing reconstruction policies lies at the local level. While information gained from other experiences could help guide some local decisions, the recovery process is very localized¾ a function of specific local conditions including the nature and severity of the disaster, local political circumstances, and the degree to which reconstruction planning has already taken place.

One important aspect of using the recovery and reconstruction processes to accomplish hazard mitigation goals is how well prepared a community is to implement them at the time the disaster strikes. There are too many demands on a community to logically and systematically establish a hazard mitigation strategy and implement mitigation activities in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. It is critical that communities consider and plan these strategies and opportunities in their emergency planning processes.

There is currently no national policy on pre-event planning for post-disaster recovery and reconstruction. FEMA’s guidelines on hazard mitigation planning encourage pre-event planning but are tied to HMGP requirements that become effective only in post-disaster situations. Most hazard mitigation plans, especially local plans, are developed after major disasters, usually many months or even years into the recovery and reconstruction processes. Many of the most important opportunities for reducing future hazard vulnerability are lost in the early recovery process when communities rush to return to normal activities.

There are difficult practical considerations associated with implementing hazard mitigation policies and initiatives in a post-disaster environment. These considerations need to be examined and weighed carefully in the planning process. Difficult political choices such as enforcing restrictions or prohibitions on rebuilding or requiring new (and possibly more expensive) construction standards for rebuilding, are often needed to implement post-event hazard mitigation policies. The pressures to return things to normal as quickly and inexpensively as possible are driven by the devastation to a community’s disaster victims. Often, the adoption of new policies and restrictions on redevelopment is not advisable or even possible in a post-disaster environment. They often stand a better chance of adoption either in a pre-event hazards planning phase or far enough into the recovery process that they will only apply to victims of the next disaster. The implementation of these policies after a disaster is often politically difficult enough; trying to develop and adopt them in the chaos that follows a disaster is usually impractical.

A major impediment to accomplishing loss reduction goals in the recovery and reconstruction processes, is the lack of a coordinated federal policy concerning the use of various types of federal disaster assistance. Numerous federal agencies are involved in providing post-disaster recovery assistance to victims. Often this assistance is used to fund projects and activities that are inconsistent with local mitigation goals and objectives, and sometimes inconsistent with other federal programs.

Some significant progress has been made toward encouraging mitigation efforts that are not exclusively associated with the "emergency" nature of hazards. These efforts are directed at ensuring a more long-term approach to dealing with risks and identifying strategies to minimize hazard exposure and potential losses. FEMA’s National Mitigation Strategy sets the stage by establishing two primary goals for hazard mitigation by the year 2010:

The strategy involves strengthening public and private partnerships and creating partnerships where none exist for building safer communities. The strategy sets forth a series of objectives by which to measure the nation's success in achieving the hazard mitigation goals and identifies the following five major focus areas: (1) hazard identification and risk assessment; (2) applied research and technology transfer; (3) public awareness, training, and education; (4) incentives and resources; and (5) leadership and coordination.

To create a link between the concepts behind the National Mitigation Strategy and the implementation of hazard mitigation initiatives at the local level, FEMA has initiated a program called "Project Impact." This is intended to help communities protect their residents, organizations, businesses, infrastructure, and the stability and growth of the local economy as much as possible against the impacts of natural disasters before they happen.

There are a number of additional initiatives and activities at the federal, state, and local levels that support long term hazard mitigation. Many states have started state-wide campaigns to encourage hazards loss reduction activities ranging from land use planning and regulations to improved building codes and engineering standards. In addition, many coastal states participating in NOAA’s Coastal Zone Management Program incorporate hazard mitigation activities into their state and local planning processes.

One of the most cost effective measures for mitigating disaster damages is to design and construct hazard resistant structures. Most coastal states have adopted statewide building codes that incorporate some type of hazard resistant construction standards. A few coastal communities have even adopted more stringent standards than the state codes to ensure that new construction can withstand certain hazards. While it is impossible to construct facilities that will endure all intensities and types of natural hazards, it is possible to cost-effectively mitigate against a community’s primary hazard threats.

The adoption and enforcement of building codes that address high risk hazard threats can ensure that structures are built to resist the impacts of natural disasters. Since most building codes only apply to new or substantially improved structures, the public and private sector can also encourage residents to retrofit existing structures for hazard resistance through other means. For example, the use of financial incentives such as reduced taxes or insurance premiums, by the public and private sectors can help to encourage hazard resistant retrofitting in existing structures.

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), administered by FEMA, has played a critical role in mitigating damages due to coastal flooding. The NFIP provides federally backed flood insurance in communities that agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management measures to reduce future flood damages. FEMA has identified flood hazard areas, including coastal high hazard areas that are subject to wave forces. Buildings constructed to NFIP minimum standards on the average perform significantly better in coastal floods and have fewer insurance claims than buildings that pre-date those requirements. Even though NFIP standards and technical guidance have resulted in fundamental changes in how coastal buildings are designed and constructed, reducing the extent of damages to individual structures, overall damages may continue to rise due to the increased value and density of development in high hazard areas.

In addition to strengthening the structural integrity of facilities, there are also important mitigation tools for the non-structural elements of buildings, utility systems, and transportation systems. Simple retrofits such as securing light fixtures to ceilings, installing wind shutters, strapping or bolting mechanical systems to walls, and numerous other techniques can prevent injuries and minimize damages and business interruptions. On a larger scale, public infrastructure such as utility systems, roads and bridges, and drainage structures can be designed, built, or retrofitted for hazard resistance.

The process of establishing and implementing state and community comprehensive development and land use plans provides significant opportunities to mitigate damages caused by natural hazards. Since location is a key factor in determining the risks associated with natural hazards, land use plans are a valuable tool in that they can designate low-risk uses for areas that are most vulnerable to natural hazards impacts.

Land use planning has long been recognized as an effective method for mitigating the impacts of natural hazards. As more information becomes available to local communities about the nature of the hazards they face, it is possible to integrate more detailed hazards data into ongoing planning and decision-making processes. Technology improvements such as the use of Geographic Information Systems in local planning allow numerous factors, including hazards, to be considered in making land use decisions. Even though more information is now available, numerous obstacles remain to implementing policies to prohibit, restrict, or even discourage development and redevelopment in high hazard areas. Many of these obstacles are political, relating to the ongoing debates about the rights of individual property owners versus the rights of government to restrict the use of private property. Even more basic, however, is the difficulty often faced in raising the priority of hazard considerations in the routine planning process.

The previous discussion of key issues and strategies provides a general overview of the management topics associated with efforts to minimize the impacts of natural coastal hazards. To improve these management strategies and make additional progress in all phases of disaster and hazards management, it is necessary to acknowledge the scientific and technological information needs throughout the various hazards-related disciplines. Significant progress has been made in the research and science associated with natural hazards during the past 20 years, and improvements in technology and understanding about hazards and how to mitigate them continue to expand our opportunities to reduce their impacts.

Many improvements in coastal hazards management are rooted in a better scientific understanding of how the hazards affect the earth, both in natural and developed areas. Universities and research institutions (particularly the National Science Foundation), along with government agencies such as NOAA and USGS that maintain scientific hazards-related responsibilities, have contributed to advances in the scientific study of natural hazards. There is now more quantitative information available about the origins and behavior of hazard events that can be used for purposes of hazard mitigation.

A major area encompassing new research and technical needs is that of hazards risk and vulnerability assessment. Maps delineating hazard-prone areas at national, state, and local levels are needed to provide a more comprehensive hazards assessment using information on a variety of natural phenomena, including coastal storms, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, wildfires, and drought. Much of this information already exists, but issues such as data integration, compatibility, scales, accuracy, and resolution need to be addressed to make the information useful at the local level. Better methodologies and models are also needed for conducting hazard vulnerability assessments that can incorporate highly variable local conditions and characteristics.

Hazard risk models in use today usually include data on many risk variables and can begin to provide estimates on projected disaster losses and other impacts using pre-determined scenarios. FEMA’s Hazards U.S. (HAZUS) model, designed to estimate disaster losses from earthquakes, is a valuable tool for this type of analysis. HAZUS is currently being updated to model the effects of wind and flood damages.

Ideally, risk and vulnerability models of the future will provide interactive scenarios for determining hazard vulnerabilities based on estimated population growth and other "what if" criteria such as land use changes or building code changes. Other advances needed in risk and vulnerability assessment include the ability to identify potential social, economic, and environmental losses. Better hazard assessment tools should improve research capabilities for determining the effectiveness of existing and proposed hazard management and land use policies. In addition to meeting the needs of the research and scientific communities, hazard risk models and decision support tools should also be developed for use by local governments and decision makers..

On the national scale, the applicability of new technologies should be explored for cost-effective methods of assessing hazards vulnerability and measuring hazards impacts. National baseline data need to be established for use in collecting and quantifying disaster impacts. Computer-based geographic information systems should be used to analyze hazards information and provide national risk assessment data to state and local governments in a quick and easy manner. New high-resolution remote sensing capabilities should be examined for use in large-scale risk and vulnerability assessment projects.

Technical capabilities to predict events have improved for some hazards, and made only modest gains for others. Improvements in monitoring, data collection, and data processing account for most of the advancements made in short-term weather-related forecasting. Better modeling capabilities, along with a more thorough understanding of variables, such as global climate change and sea-level rise, are needed to improve long-range forecasting and planning for coastal hazard impacts. More information is also needed about the interactions between hazard events such as rising water levels in the Great Lakes, and ongoing coastal processes, such as erosion, to predict future hazard impacts.

Significant progress has been made in understanding the various impacts that hazards produce on human and natural environments. Numerous research activities have been undertaken following the major hazard events of the past few years. These research activities focus on a wide range of impacts including those on developed and natural environments, as well as the effects of disasters on the social and economic systems of impacted communities. Unfortunately, much of this research is piecemeal and has not been incorporated into any type of comprehensive database on disaster losses.

Detailed information on disaster losses and their associated costs is needed to serve as a baseline for evaluating the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Other advancements needed for evaluating hazard mitigation options include better engineering information about the effectiveness of structural techniques such as flood or wind proofing, and better sociological information about the effectiveness of the various incentives available to encourage mitigation activities.

Public interest and education are the most critical elements for succeeding in the overall goal to reduce the impacts of coastal hazards. Unfortunately, there are many complex issues involved in public perceptions about hazards, risks, and disasters. It is important to understand how the public perceives and responds to these topics. Research findings suggest that the links between perceived risk and behavior are particularly complicated. While it is the hazard itself that people respond to in an emergency situation, it is only the risk of the hazard that influences (or does not influence) behavior prior to an event. This is an important distinction in understanding public responses to hazards. While the impacts of actual hazard events or disasters leave the affected public reacting to nature’s destructive forces, the threat of a hazard event causes the broader population to struggle with convoluted concepts of risk, probability, and possible consequences.

The issue can become even more complex depending on the "time horizon" for which people are expected to calculate risks. Even when faced with the threat of an actual storm event, people are often reluctant to heed warnings and protect themselves and their property. There have been many research projects dedicated specifically to studying influences on behavior in a pre-storm environment. These projects evaluate the factors influencing people’s decisions to evacuate high risk areas, seek shelter, and take damage precautions for their property. Given the difficulty in convincing the general public of the risks associated with a near term threat, it is not surprising that long term hazard risks are often insignificant factors in individual decision making processes.

The public is genuinely concerned about the costs of major hazard events in terms of deaths and property damages. Disaster costs are skyrocketing, resulting in heightened public awareness. The public’s concern about risk on an individual basis, however, is less certain. For example, studies have found that information about the potential for hazards such as earthquakes, coastal erosion, and flooding has little effect on the home selection of buyers. Other considerations such as price, location, size, and amenities are found to be overwhelmingly more important in their decision process. This evidence suggests that concerns about hazard risks at the individual level do not significantly influence the public’s choices or behavior. As a result, demand for coastal growth and development is probably not the consequence of indifference to disaster costs, but more likely the outcome of the public’s willingness to assume individual risks, even though the cumulative impacts can be catastrophic.

As population increases in coastal areas and more residents are subjected to the risks of coastal hazards, the link between information and awareness remains an important one. "It is not uncommon to hear people living in a hazardous place¾ especially if that place is a large urban area¾ declare that they are free of risk in their location. In urban areas, where there is a greater mobility of population and less direct contact with the environment, the occupant of hazardous terrain may be less informed." (Burton, et al., 1993) The uninformed public is certain to be at a disadvantage in preparing for and responding to hazard threats.

Another misconception about public perception of hazard risks involves the link between hazard experience and behavior. A number of research studies indicate that prior hazards experience does not necessarily lead to subsequent preventative action. In fact, several studies have concluded that people without any hurricane experience tend to prepare and evacuate earlier than those who have experienced it before, suggesting that "threshold" levels are higher for experienced coastal residents. (Sims and Baumann, 1983). Education and outreach, therefore, must be continuous and ongoing efforts to convince a diverse public of their risks to the impacts of hazards.

The complexity of these issues suggests that a general "blanket approach" to hazards education and public policy will not be very effective. The reality is that people perceive hazard risks differently from one another and often perceive their own risks differently depending on the location and the situation. Different educational approaches need to be tailored to fit the appropriate audiences. Since hazard mitigation can include many different strategies such as improving emergency preparedness, strengthening the built environment, avoiding development in hazardous locations, and acquiring adequate insurance coverage, public education opportunities exist in many different disciplines. The challenge is for those disciplines to come together in promoting a clear and concise hazard mitigation message to the public.

Many organizations in the public and private sectors are involved in hazard mitigation education and outreach activities. FEMA, along with their state and local emergency management partners have ongoing public education campaigns directed at the general public. FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program also includes a major public information campaign. Other federal agencies such as NOAA and USGS also include hazards-related educational and outreach efforts that increasingly incorporate a hazard mitigation focus. Numerous state-level coastal zone management and Sea Grant organizations are developing statewide programs to promote hazard awareness and mitigation activities. Organizations like the American Red Cross and the Institute for Business and Home Safety are dynamic leaders in national hazard mitigation initiatives that promote public-private partnerships and education. The private sector is also becoming increasingly active in promoting hazard awareness and mitigation through programs such as the Disaster Recovery Business Alliance. Insurance companies and financial institutions are also playing a larger role in educating the public and encouraging disaster loss reduction through mitigation.

A shift in focus from the traditional disaster planning and management approach to a more comprehensive hazards management strategy will require a long-range, coordinated effort involving numerous public and private sector partners. There is a great deal of attention focused on hazards due to several consecutive years of catastrophic events. El Nino has also played a major role in focusing the nation’s attention on natural hazards. Now is an appropriate time to identify and evaluate the full range of opportunities for reducing future disaster impacts. Some of the highest priority hazards issues are identified below and described in terms of a few key barriers and opportunities for improvement:

Scientific understanding of coastal environments. A key element in reducing disaster impacts is to develop a more thorough scientific understanding of the natural and physical environments that are at risk. The opportunity exists to establish baseline information about the physical features and characteristics of the coast and identify the geologic factors that make certain coastal locations particularly vulnerable to hazard impacts. One of the primary obstacles to this effort is the lack of relevant data on a scale that can be useful in local hazards management.

Risk assessment. The increased emphasis on hazard mitigation at the local level led by FEMA’s National Mitigation Strategy and its Project Impact initiative has expanded the interest and desire of many local governments to identify their hazards and conduct risk and vulnerability assessments. This interest presents an opportunity to develop sound risk assessment methodologies for use at the local level. The most significant obstacles to overcome in this area include the limitations of existing data and information, and the expense associated with developing high accuracy local hazards data. Some of the issues that need to be resolved include data availability, resolution, scale, accuracy, and cost. If risk assessments are too general, hazards data may not be incorporated into existing decision support systems at the local level.

Prediction, forecasts, and warnings. While varying degrees of progress have been reported in enhancing prediction and warning capabilities for the different natural hazards, certain research aspects of the field have flourished over the last several years. There is an abundance of social and behavioral research dedicated to studying individual responses to hazard predictions and warnings. This body of research provides opportunities for improving warning systems based on the human perceptions of disasters. There is a recognized need for a strategy that addresses the behavioral research findings, and strives to achieve some level of consistency and continuity concerning warnings for the various hazards that threaten communities. The most significant obstacle to implementing improvements in warning systems is the lack of a consistent national policy or strategy on warnings. Another challenge in the area of forecasts and warnings is expanding lead times enough to meet the increasing demands caused by growth in high risk locations.

Disaster preparedness and response. This is probably the most developed area of emergency management, complete with plans, exercises, training, and public education programs established at the various levels of government. In recent years, even the private sector has become active in disaster response planning. Based on the advanced level of program development and the presence of an established multi-disciplinary network, this field offers many potential opportunities to emphasize disaster reduction strategies and identify mitigation opportunities. The challenges to such efforts could include a general resistance to change in established programs, particularly at the local level where resources are scarce and personnel have little, if any, training to support such a focus.

Education. Opportunities to improve hazard mitigation through education are plentiful. Because numerous government and non-government organizations (such as the American Red Cross and Institute for Business and Home Safety) are focusing on disaster loss reduction initiatives, there are multiple networks and resources available for delivering hazard mitigation messages to school age children and the general public. One of the barriers, however, is the lack of a simple, clear, and meaningful message to relay. The concepts and terms associated with hazard mitigation need to be simplified and put into a concrete, recognizable frame of reference for a mass public audience. Many hazards practitioners describe a goal to influence public behavior through awareness campaigns as similar to those used for seat belts and recycling. To achieve such a goal will require well planned and thoroughly researched long range strategies.

Disaster Losses. There is now a recognizable need to improve the methods for collecting, reporting, and maintaining databases on the losses association with natural hazards. Several recent and ongoing studies are focusing on specific measures to improve these methods and more fully account for the short and long range impacts of natural hazards. One of the primary obstacles to implementing a more complete disaster loss database, is the government’s fragmented approach to hazards information. Different agencies and organizations have responsibility for different types of hazards data. Often the data is anecdotal, collected for a specific case study or event, and not part of a larger, ongoing data collection effort. Categories of losses are generally not consistent from one agency to another, and when disaster loss totals for a single event are compared between agencies, they are rarely even close to the same figure. These inconsistencies create huge gaps in accountability and do not provide an adequate baseline for measuring progress for hazard mitigation.

Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction. Many lessons have been learned from the recent catastrophic events concerning the use of hazard mitigation in the recovery and reconstruction process. Affected local communities can share these experiences concerning what works and what does not in a post-disaster environment. One of the things that has clearly been demonstrated in recent events is the need to prepare reconstruction plans before a disaster strikes. Most communities do not engage in recovery and reconstruction planning, leaving important hazard mitigation opportunities unrealized.

Engineering and Structural Mitigation. As increased attention has been focused on reducing disaster losses, significant research has focused on engineering and structural methods for strengthening the built environment. Much more information is available about construction and building techniques for withstanding the various forces of nature. While some progress has been made in the construction and retrofit of more disaster resistant structures, one of the main barriers to progress continues to be a lack of incentives to encourage such measures.

Land Use Planning and Policies. Land use planning has long been recognized as an effective method for mitigating the impacts of natural hazards. As more information becomes available to local communities about the nature of the hazards they face, it is possible to integrate more detailed hazards data into ongoing planning and decision-making processes. Technology improvements such as the use of Geographic Information Systems in local planning allow numerous factors, including hazards, to be considered in making land use decisions. Even though more information is available, there remains numerous obstacles in implementing policies to prohibit, restrict, or even discourage development and redevelopment in high hazard areas. Many of these obstacles are political, relating to the ongoing debates about the rights of individual property owners versus the rights of government to restrict the use of private property. Even more basic, however, is the difficulty often faced in raising the priority of hazard considerations in the routine planning process.

Burton, Ian, Kates, Robert W., White, Gilbert F. 1993. The Environment as Hazard. New York : Guilford Press.

Culliton, T.J., C.M. Blackwell, D.G. Remer, T.R. Goodspeed, M.A. Warren, and J. J. McDonough III. 1990. "50 Years of Population Change along the Nation’s Coasts, 1960-2010" Coastal Trends Series, Report No. 2.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1997. A Reference Library - Fact Sheet,@ FEMA web site. (http://www.fema.gov/fema/fact10.html) September 22, 1997.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1995. "National Hazard Mitigation Strategy: Partnerships for Building Safer Communities."

Godschalk et al., 1989. Catastrophic Coastal Storms: Hazard Mitigation and Development Management. Durham: Duke University Press.

Katuna, Michael P., Robert B. Blythe, Michael E. Moeller, and Bryan P. Williams, 1995. "Final Report: Study of Shoreline Migration Rates and Sediment Budgets for Seabrook, Kiawah, and Folly Islands, South Carolina." Pages 2-3. University of Charleston. Submitted to the Minerals Management Service, Office of International Activities and Mineral Resources, Herndon, VA

National Research Council, 1990. Managing Coastal Erosion, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Oregon Sea Grant, 1994. "Improving Natural Hazards Management on the Oregon Coast: Recommendations of the Coastal Natural Hazards Policy Working Group." Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. ORESU-T-94-002. Page 11.

Pielke, 1997. Homepage for Roger Pielke, Jr. web site. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado (http://www.dir.ucar.edu/esig/HP_roger.html).

Sims, John H. ; Baumann, Duane D. "Educational Programs and Human Response to Natural Hazards," Environment and Behavior. 1983; 15, (2) 165-189

South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium, 1997. "Taking Steps to Protect Your Home," Coastal Heritage, Volume 12, Number 1. Charleston, SC.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 1997. "Information Bank, U.S. Geological Survey, Coastal and Marine Geology, Western Region." web site. (url: http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/docs/infobank/fielddata/infohome.html) September 18, 1997.

DoD Department of Defense

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

GIS Geographic Information Systems

HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NWS National Weather Service

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USGS U.S. Geological Survey