Towards an Understanding of the Challenges and Issues

Confronting Disaster planning David Eisenman, MD, MSHS

Director, UCLA Center for Public Health and Disasters

Associate Professor of Medicine and Public Health

Associate Natural Scientist, RAND

Preparedness Science Officer, LACDPH

Four Theories of DisastersThe Growing Risk of DisastersWhat Can be Done About This?

Disasters as Acts of Disasters as Acts of God or FateGod or Fate

(dis, astro)—roughly, “formed on a star.”

“Acts of God”

Disasters as Acts of Disasters as Acts of Nature.Nature.

Lisbon 1755– Effected everyone

so how could it be act of God?

Root cause is extremes of nature– “Natural disaster”

First modern disaster

Disaster as Intersection of Disaster as Intersection of Nature and SocietyNature and SocietyCarr, (1930): failure of society’s

protections is required in disaster– Thus, man-made– “So long as the ship rides out the storm, so long

as the city resists the earth-shocks, so long as the levees hold, there is no disaster. It is the collapse of the cultural protections that constitutes the disaster proper.”

Disaster as Avoidable Human Creation that Highlights Societal Injustices & Social Vulnerability

Not enough that there is a human component. Now see victims of larger social forces.

Focus on the vulnerability of people.

– People who experience disaster are victims of social forces/powerful interests who have created the conditions for their hazard vulnerability

Viewing as amoral the scientific (traditional) approaches.

– Searching for blame.

Disaster as Highlighting Societal Injustices & Social Vulnerability

Cannono: “disasters are not ‘natural’ (not even sudden ones) because hazards affect people differently within societies and may have very different impacts on different societies. . .”

Disaster is a Growth BusinessDisaster is a Growth Business

World-wide, rapidly escalating human and economic losses from weather-related disasters

Reason is multifactorial

What can be done about this: The major tenets of building disaster resilient communities.

Adopt a global systems perspective.– Complementary structural and nonstructural risk

reduction

 Accept responsibility for hazards and disasters.

 Challenge Traditional Planning Model

– Disasters By Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States, Dennis Mileti.

Disaster Risk Management CycleDisaster Risk Management Cycle–Mitigation: limits the adverse impact of hazard.

–Preparedness: ensures effective response to hazard impact –MitigationMitigation

–PreventionPrevention

–RecoveryRecovery

–ResponseResponse

–PreparednessPreparedness

–Source: Keim M. Building human resilience. Am J Prev Med 2008;35(5):508-516

What can be done about this: The major tenets of building disaster resilient communities.

 Reject short-term thinking.  Account for social forces.

– (address the challenge of establishing the core value of resilience in communities; building local community capacity )

 Embrace sustainable development.

– Disasters By Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States, Dennis Mileti.

Foster local, community-level Foster local, community-level resilienceresilience

Fostering local, community-level Fostering local, community-level disaster resiliencedisaster resilience

Resilience = ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover and more successfully adapt to adverse events

Focus on “we” vs “me” Building social capital, social networks Public as “asset” not something to be

commanded and controlled Community engagement

Addressing the challenge of Addressing the challenge of making resilience a core value making resilience a core value of communitiesof communities