**1998 Year of the Ocean**

**MITIGATING THE IMPACTS OF COASTAL HAZARDS**

**Contents**

1\. INTRODUCTION H-2

2\. KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND STRATEGIES FOR MITIGATION H-5

3\. STATUS OF THE RELEVANT SCIENCE AND TECHNICAL BASE H-10

4\. EDUCATION, OUTREACH, AND PUBLIC INTEREST H-12

5\. OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS FOR MANAGING THE

IMPACTS OF COASTAL HAZARDS H-14

6\. REFERENCES H-16

7\. LIST OF ACRONYMS H-18

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.

**INTRODUCTION**

**Coastal HazardsIncreasing Populations and Higher Costs**

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.

**Reducing Disaster Losses through Hazard Mitigation**

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.

**KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND STRATEGIES**

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.

**Mitigation Through Better Predictions, Forecasts, and Warnings**

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.

**Broadened Emergency Preparedness And Response**

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.

**Preplanning for Opportunities during Recovery and Reconstruction**

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 localized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.

**Coordinating Federal Policies on Hazard Mitigation**

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:

\(1\) To substantially increase public awareness of natural hazard risk
so that the public demands safer communities in which to live and work

\(2\) To significantly reduce the risk of loss of life, injuries,
economic costs, and destruction of natural and cultural resources that
result from natural hazards

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.

**Strengthening The Built Environment**

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 Role of Land Use Planning**

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.

**STATUS OF THE RELEVANT SCIENCE AND TECHNICAL BASE**

**Scientific Understanding of Hazards**

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.

**Hazards Risk and Vulnerability Assessment**

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.

**Hazards Prediction and Modeling**

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.

**Hazard Impacts and Losses**

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.

**EDUCATION, OUTREACH, AND PUBLIC INTEREST**

**Links between Hazard Threats and Protective Behavior**

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.

**Public Concern for Rising Costs**

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 placeespecially if that place is a large
urban area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.

**Hazard Experience and Individual Behavior**

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.

**Multi-Faceted Public Education Process**

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.

**OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS FOR MANAGING**

**THE IMPACTS OF COASTAL HAZARDS**

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.

**REFERENCES**

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.

**LIST OF ACRONYMS**

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