**Environmental Management and Disasters:**

**Contributions of the Discipline to the Profession**

**and Practice of Emergency Management**

John R. Labadie, Ph.D., CHMM

Senior Environmental Analyst

Seattle Public Utilities

P. O. Box 34018

Seattle, WA 98104

<John.labadie@seattle.gov>

# Abstract

This chapter explores the contributions that environmental management
can make to the theory and practice of emergency management. It first
examines environmental management as a distinct field of practice and
draws parallels in the diversity of academic backgrounds and routes of
entry common to both fields. A brief history of the environmental
movement in the US is followed by a discussion of the concept of
"disaster" in the context of environmental management and emergency
management, and an acknowledgement of the significance of environmental
degradation as a contributing factor in disaster effects. The chapter
notes the domestic and international regulatory imperative that embeds
emergency management solidly in the practice of environmental
management, and it concludes by identifying areas where environmental
management and emergency management can and should interact more
positively for mutual benefit and support.

# Introduction

The disciplines of environmental management and emergency management
share many of the same concepts, issues, processes, and concerns. Yet
they come into contact only rarely, and then usually it is only a
glancing blow. Parts of environmental management include risk
assessment, hazard identification, spill response, and
emergency/contingency planning -- all activities that are central to the
practice of emergency management. Other parts of the field address such
issues as water quality, protection of flora and fauna, and general
health of the ecosystem -- all of which may be affected by decisions and
actions taken in the pursuit of emergency management.

The editor's original assignment for this chapter centered on
Environmental Science but, like any good student, I have re-written the
exam question just a bit. I found that focusing on Environmental Science
is a bit too restrictive and not sufficiently informative. Accordingly,
I have modified the scope of the chapter to focus on Environmental
Management, which includes Environmental Science, Environmental
Engineering, Ecology, and related disciplines. This focus gives a more
well-rounded view of the environmental field and its potential
contributions to emergency management.

I have long been a practitioner in both fields. I have, therefore,
approached the information, concepts, and arguments discovered in
researching this chapter from the perspective of those in both fields
who are confronted, on a daily basis, with the need to act and make
decisions that have immediate practical effects. I have tried to focus
on practical applications as opposed to policy formulation. Considering
the spectrum of "environment" -- small-scale waste management at one
end, global warming and climate change at the other -- this article
focuses on the part from the mid-line (wherever that is) on down.

This chapter does not pretend to an exhaustive discussion of
environmental issues, nor does it explore all of the current thinking
and research in emergency management. Rather, it focuses on those areas
where the two disciplines overlap and can interact to mutual benefit. It
also does not trespass on other discrete fields such as safety,
meteorology, public health, or law even though there are explicit
interactions and interpenetrations between these fields and both
environmental management and emergency management.

# Understanding the terms

Environmental management is somewhat of a portmanteau term that
comprises many of the more academically accepted disciplines. It brings
together elements of science, engineering, policy, assessment, and
auditing, as well as basic down-in-the dirt/air/water analysis and
action. At one end of the spectrum lies the realm of environmental
policy and regulation; at the other end lies what has been described as
"blue-collar science." Here is a quick definitional tour:

-   Ecology -- a consensus definition on the web is "The study of the
    relationships between living organisms and their environment."

-   Environmental Science "comprises those disciplines, or parts of
    them, that consider the physical, chemical and biological aspects of
    the environment. ... it transcends disciplinary boundaries and is
    concerned with the interactions among processes each of which is
    best described by a particular discipline. It is the study of
    natural cycles and systems and their components\" (Allaby 1996).

-   Environmental Engineering is the application of science and
    engineering principles to improve the environment, to provide
    healthful water, air and land for human habitation and other
    organisms, and to enhance the remediation of polluted sites.

-   Environmental Management is the planning and implementation of
    actions geared to improve the quality of the human environment. It
    is public and private organizations actively dealing with
    environmental issues on a daily basis.

The boundaries among these fields are neither straight nor rigid, and
they permit migration to and from a number of other disciplines --
consider "environmental health" or "environmental toxicology."

One can come to a career in environmental management from many
directions. In preparing this chapter, I took an informal poll of 38
co-workers and colleagues (in both public and private sectors) who are
active in some aspect of the environmental management field. I asked for
their academic experience (degree and major; advanced degrees). I was
expecting a broad range of backgrounds, and I was not disappointed.
Though I make no claim to statistical rigor, the following chart shows
the considerable variation in academic backgrounds among the
respondents.

**Environmental Management Academic Background**

+-------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------+
| Degree            | Undergraduate     |                             |
|                   | Major             |                             |
+-------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------+
| N = 38            | Engineering       | History/Humanities/ Liberal |
|                   |                   | Arts -- 3                   |
| BS -- 23 (1       | -   Civil -- 1    |                             |
| person has 2)     |                   | Other (1 each)              |
|                   | -   Chemical -- 1 |                             |
| BA -- 14          |                   | -   Business                |
|                   | -   Mechanical -- |                             |
| B Phil -- 1       |     1             | -   Hotel Management        |
|                   |                   |                             |
| AA/Cert. -- 1     | -   Environmental | -   Nat. Resources Mgmt.    |
|                   |     -- 1          |                             |
| MS -- 8           |                   | -   Forestry                |
|                   | Environmental     |                             |
| MA/MPA -- 5       |                   | -   Anthropology            |
|                   | -   Science -- 3  |                             |
| JD/PhD -- 4       |                   | -   Education               |
|                   | -   Studies -- 2  |                             |
|                   |                   | -   Env. Administration     |
|                   | Biology -- 4      |                             |
|                   |                   | -   Mathematics             |
|                   | Fisheries -- 2    |                             |
|                   |                   | -   Planning                |
|                   | Geology -- 3      |                             |
|                   |                   | -   Agricultural Technology |
|                   | Chemistry -- 4    |     and Management          |
|                   |                   |                             |
|                   |                   | -   Marine Science          |
|                   |                   |                             |
|                   |                   | -   Environmental Health    |
|                   |                   |                             |
|                   |                   | -   Physics                 |
|                   |                   |                             |
|                   |                   | ```{=html}                  |
|                   |                   | <!-- -->                    |
|                   |                   | ```                         |
|                   |                   | -   Political Science       |
+-------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------+

The BS degree predominates but not overwhelmingly so. Environmental
Science/Studies represent but a fraction of the academic majors
represented. The "other" category is all over the map. Graduate study is
equally varied: Engineering, Forest Science, Biopsychology,
Environmental Management/Natural Resources, Psychology, History, and Law
-- to name a few.

The point here is that there are many roads into the practice of
environmental management, just as the field itself covers a wide variety
of disciplines, activities, and sub-specialties. I imagine that a
similar survey of practitioners in the emergency management field would
show a similar variability in backgrounds.

# Brief history of the environmental movement

The Environmental Movement (or "Environmentalism," another popular term)
is a relative youngster, of uncertain parentage. Some of its roots lie
in the ethics of conservation and preservation that arose in the late
19^th^ and early 20^th^ centuries. With the closing of the American
frontier came the desire to protect the "wild lands" on the one hand
and, on the other, to produce as much as possible without spoiling the
land. Preservation and "right use" were the prevailing ideas regarding
the land and water. Wilderness protection in the 1920s and 30s was aimed
at "setting nature apart" as a national repository of aesthetic,
ecological, recreational, and regenerative riches for the benefit of
urban citizens (Gottlieb 1993).

On the other side of the family lie efforts through the 1920's to
address the human health and environmental hazards of the increasingly
urban/industrial life of many Americans. Alice Hamilton, Professor of
Industrial Medicine at Harvard, published *Industrial Poisons in the
United States* (1920), detailing the hazards affecting industrial
workers and urban residents. The public health profession after WWI
began to attack such problems in the cities as contaminated water
supplies, poor waste collection/disposal systems, and air pollution.
Labor unions also promoted reform through environmental advocacy for and
by workers.

The unrestrained urbanization and industrialization after WWII brought
with it more discretionary income, more leisure (due to automation,
labor saving devices, etc.), increased automobile ownership and use --
leading in part to more travel and a greater appreciation of
environmental surroundings and amenities. At the same time, the growth
of suburbia and the proliferation of affordable housing led to more
intensive use of land and resources. Construction of wastewater
treatment plants did not keep up with population growth and density,
with the result that raw sewage flowed into streams and lakes, causing
pollution and eutrophication and the death of aquatic wildlife. More
consumption created more municipal waste that was disposed of in
landfills, open dumps, or incinerators with no pollution control
equipment[^1].

A number of disparate ideas, trends, and discontents came together in
the late 60s and early 70s to create (among other things) what we know
as the modern Environmental Movement in the United States. Rachel
Carson's *Silent Spring* had sensitized people to corporate and
governmental lack of concern over the effects of pesticides on humans,
birds, and animals. Pollution of land, air, and water were becoming
increasingly obvious -- including such spectacles as the Cuyahoga River
catching fire, the Santa Barbara oil spill, to name a few (Speth 2004,
p. 82-83). At the same time, New Left critiques of political ideas and
concepts, philosophies and the dubious fruits of technological progress
(not to mention anti-war, anti-government protests) provided a matrix
for environmental consciousness and action: "...for many in and around
the New Left, environmentalism came to be associated with the search for
alternative institutions and a new way of life" (Gottlieb 1993, p. 97).

The passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969 and the
celebration of Earth Day around the nation in 1970 (surpassing the
organizers' expectations in the extent and enthusiasm of
participation[^2]) engendered both a significant body of legislative and
regulatory action on environmental matters and an explosion of popular
enthusiasm, interest, and activity for environmental protection and
quality.

In just four years, between 1970 and 1974, an extraordinary range of
legislative initiatives, regulatory activities, and court action came to
the fore. These established a broad and expansive environmental policy
system centered around efforts to control the environmental by-products
of the urban and industrial order. Through this system, a vast pollution
control, or environmental protection industry was created, including
engineering companies, law firms, waste management operations, and
consulting firms specializing in environmental review, standard setting,
or other new environmental procedures (Gottlieb 1993, p.125).

This environmental protection industry, along with the growth of
technical expertise within regulatory agencies, placed the environmental
quality debate on a more scientific, technically-based foundation from
which to confront the full range of environmental problems facing
society. The growth of new environmental expertise and technical
competence, emphasizing technical solutions, has largely focused on
"end-of-pipe" solutions (i.e., dealing with the problems after they have
already been created). Some laws do have a pollution prevention focus,
but most efforts, until fairly recently, have concentrated on dealing
with the waste already created.

Efforts by the Reagan Administration to roll back environmental
regulation were met with a revitalized effort by environmental
organizations, citizens' groups, victims of pollution effects, and
academics to ensure that the gains of the 70s would not disappear.
Though progress had been made in some areas (e.g., urban air quality),
enhanced attention to and more rigorous investigation of environmental
contamination had discovered even more -- and more threatening --
problems (Dunlap 1992, p. 5). The proliferation of grassroots
environmental movements in 1990s brought together a broad cross-section
of class, occupational, and income groups pursuing local action against
toxic industrial and disposal sites, landfills, and treatment plants.
This has grown into a concerted focus on environmental justice/equity,
environmental quality as an issue of civil rights, gender, ethnicity,
and empowerment.

Global environmentalism has proceeded along much the same route,
although perhaps not as soon or as quickly. Significant events during
the 1980s (Bhopal, Sandoz, Chernobyl, Exxon Valdez) got public attention
and influenced governments to increase their rhetoric, if not immediate
action. Popular protest eventually created an agenda item for
international affairs, and the status of the environment became an
object of political action and legal prescription. More recently,
governments and NGOs have focused on sustainable development and the
deleterious effects of environmental degradation (Dunlap 1992).

An important, though still quite controversial, development within the
environmental community is the "Precautionary Principle", which assigns
the burden of proof to those who want to introduce a new technology,
particularly in cases where there is little or no established need or
benefit and where the hazards are serious and irreversible. Growing out
of European environmental policies in the late 1970s, the Precautionary
Principle notes a potential environmental or human health hazard,
emphasizes the scientific uncertainty that exists regarding the possible
result, and therefore asserts the need for preventive, precautionary
action as opposed to immediate implementation.[^3] Though popular in
Europe, the Principle is criticized by many as limiting technological
progress, hindering the introduction of new products (e.g.,
genetically-modified crops), and generally contributing to an
anti-business bias (Foster, Vecchia, and Repacholi 2000).

To return to the focus of this chapter, one can draw parallels between
the growth and development of the environmental management profession
and that of emergency management. Civil defense became disaster
preparedness, which became all-hazards preparedness, which grew into
emergency management with an increasing focus on mitigation
(prevention/reduction) as opposed to response and recovery
("end-of-pipe"). Considerable research into human response to disasters,
effective planning concepts, and information management and
communications has provided a technical foundation for the practice of
emergency management. Practitioners have shed the "helmet and armband",
"retired military" image and have taken advantage of increasing
opportunities for formal education, with a discrete body of knowledge,
and certification in the field.

# "Environmental" in the disaster context

The environment is often seen as the agent/cause of a disaster or
perhaps as the carrier. In an earthquake or a flood, for example, the
"environment" behaves in ways that bring harm to the communities
affected by them -- one suddenly finds the environment sitting in one's
living room. However, people make choices -- farming practices, use and
procurement of fuels, selection of building materials and sites, etc. --
that significantly affect their vulnerability to environmental disasters
(Aptekar 1994; May, et. al. 1996). This view mirrors the idea that
disaster is a social construct formed by the interaction of human
development with natural processes. An earthquake is a disaster only
when it impacts the human infrastructure (Mileti 1999; Cutter 2001;
Burton 1993; Varley 1994).

But the environment also interacts with human society in complex ways.
Floods may damage natural habitats and ecosystems; forest fires may harm
forest ecosystems and damage the biotic stock in an area. Yet, floods
are necessary to renew and enrich riparian corridors and wetlands and to
recharge aquifers; forest fires thin out undergrowth that could fuel
larger fires, and they can re-vitalize biodiversity (Sauri 2004). Floods
can clog wastewater treatment plants, causing the release of untreated
sewage into water bodies; floods can also mobilize contaminants and
industrial chemicals that then flow downstream and possibly into those
same aquifers.

Thus, an "environmental" hazard may be difficult to define, and there
can be a fine distinction between an environmental hazard (i.e., water
out of control -- a flood) and an environmental resource (i.e., water in
control -- a reservoir). It can often be a matter of perception
regarding deviations about the norm -- too much rain is a flood; too
little is a drought (Smith 1996, p. 11). Some definitions of
environmental hazard emphasize the acute and short-term at the expense
of the chronic and long-term (droughts desertification, erosion), for
example:

> ...extreme geophysical events, biological processes and major
> technological accidents, characterized by concentrated releases of
> energy or materials, which pose a largely unexpected threat to human
> life and can cause significant damage to goods and the environment
> (Smith 1996, p. 16).

There is a growing understanding of environmental degradation as a
contributing factor in disaster effects -- i.e., an exacerbating factor
in damage, it worsens impact on victims and makes recovery more
difficult. One example:

> Although the largest danger facing Turkish urban areas is earthquake,
> numerous other hazards exist. Improper handling of solid wastes causes
> explosive methane build-up, endangers the physical environment,
> reduces property values and destroys the scenic and tourist values of
> highly visited areas.... Near the larger cities, many bodies of water
> are so polluted that they are no longer suitable for recreational use.
> High levels of heavy metals are found in harbor catches, and massive
> fish kills are common. Marine accidents release massive, toxic
> discharges, sometimes causing explosions that destroy buildings and
> facilities. Dangerous chemicals enter the urban food chain...urban
> rivers are polluted...agricultural chemicals and waste water have
> contaminated precious aquifers... (Parker, Kreimer, and Munasinghe
> 1995, p.13).

The most recent example occurred in the South Asian tsunami -- long-term
damage to coral reefs and degradation of mangrove swamps in some areas
reduced the capacity of natural systems to absorb or cushion the kinetic
energy of the tsunami surge.

Deleterious effects of degraded environmental conditions are felt most
keenly (though not exclusively) by the poor, residents of shantytowns,
"favelas," and other marginal or hazardous areas. They are clustered on
steep slopes subject to flash floods and erosion, in dwellings built of
substandard materials, with poor water and waste disposal systems.
Natural disaster effects can be greatly magnified by the poor
environment in which these people live.

According to Pelling (2003b), there is a tendency to focus on technical
and engineering issues in addressing environmental problems or issues
and to discount the influence of social characteristics on
susceptibility to environmental risk. This bias toward technological and
physical solutions (e.g., flood walls, or leachate mitigation systems)
can encourage development in hazard areas when, in fact, hazards can
surpass the margin of safety provided by technological solutions.

**"Disaster" in the environmental context**

The field of emergency management tends to focus more on harm to the
human environment and the built environment and to pay less attention to
the larger environment in which humans and structures exist. Also, the
emphasis is on the more acute disasters (like earthquakes or chemical
spills) and less on the slow-developing problems with chronic effects
(e.g., Minamata or acid rain) or on acute events with long-lasting
consequences (e.g., Bhopal, or the Tisza River). This no doubt reflects
the understandable orientation of emergency management professionals to
the needs of planning for and response to the immediate effects of a
disaster and the desire for speedy restoration to something approaching
the *status quo ante*.

Environmental professionals take a somewhat more comprehensive view,
considering not only the human and built environments but also the
matrix in which they exist. Environmental concerns include not only
humans but also plants and animals, water and air quality, the fate and
transport of environmental contaminants, the toxicology of human and
animal effects, and the exposure and vulnerability (both acute and
chronic) of the affected biota. All of these concerns can -- and should
-- contribute in some way to the practice of emergency management
before, during, and after disasters.

Consider the scope of environmental hazards/disasters:

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Acute                              | Chronic                         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| -   Floods                         | -   Sedimentation and siltation |
|                                    |                                 |
| -   Oil spills on water bodies     | -   Air pollution               |
|                                    |                                 |
| -   Hazardous materials spills (to | -   Genetic mutation in         |
|     soil)                          |     indicator species           |
|                                    |                                 |
| -   Hazardous materials spills (to | -   Drought[^4]                 |
|     water bodies)                  |                                 |
|                                    | -   Global warming              |
| -   Landslides                     |                                 |
|                                    | -   Deforestation and flooding  |
| -   Containment failure (mine      |                                 |
|     spoils, industrial wastes)     | -   Loss of wetlands            |
|                                    |                                 |
| -   Fish kills                     |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

Environmental management confronts all of these hazards, in one manner
or another, and brings the full range of scientific, technical, and
managerial skills and techniques to bear on preventing mitigating, or
responding to their effects. Of course, the definitions of "emergency"
and "disaster" are a bit different in the environmental field: "An
environmental emergency is a tanker truck full of acid overturned and
spilling in the middle of town. An environmental disaster is that same
tanker spilling into a wetland or a river."[^5]

Environmental hazards are not independent of other types of hazards, and
one may lead to the other or make the other worse. For example, floods
can degrade water quality, release chemicals and other contaminants from
impoundments or containers (or even float off the containers themselves
to lodge in someone else's backyard). Earthquakes can cause
transportation spills, industrial chemical releases through
infrastructure damage, or damage to containment. Destruction of the
World Trade Center released asbestos, respiratory irritants, polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (possible carcinogens), pulverized metals, and
god-knows-what-else into the atmosphere, affecting rescue and recovery
workers and undoubtedly contaminating the surrounding area (Mattei). As
we have seen in the example from Turkey, above, environmental hazards
may only be waiting for a triggering event to make a natural disaster
even worse.

# The Regulatory Imperative

Starting with the National Environmental Policy Act, 28 major
environmental protection laws were enacted between 1969 and 1986.
Environmental legislation since 1986 has generally focused on expanding
or extending (and, in some cases, clarifying) existing laws. A number of
these laws -- and their implementing regulations -- specifically address
emergency planning and/or response in some way. These include:

-   Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, 1976) -- Requires
    hazardous waste facilities to prepare and maintain emergency plans
    to prevent or respond to releases of hazardous wastes

-   Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
    (CERCLA or "Superfund") -- includes requirements for emergency plans
    during cleanup actions on uncontrolled waste sites

-   Clean Water Act & Oil Pollution Act (1990) -- requires Spill
    Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures plans be prepared by
    certain facilities storing petroleum fuels

-   Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA or SARA
    Title III) -- directed states and local governments to establish
    planning and coordination bodies to carry out emergency planning for
    chemical emergencies in their jurisdictions

-   Clean Air Act, section 112r, Risk Management Program -- requires
    certain industrial facilities to prepare an "off-site consequence
    analysis" for releases of certain chemicals and to prepare emergency
    plans in coordination with local response agencies

-   Executive Order 12856 (1993) -- directs Federal facilities to comply
    with EPCRA regarding public notification of chemical use and
    emergency planning

States have enacted their own set of environmental laws and regulations
that parallel, enhance, and extend Federal regulations. In many cases
(California and New Jersey are good examples), state regulations are
more strict than Federal requirements.

An example of European regulatory action, affecting more than one
country, is the Seveso Directive. A 1976 explosion at a chemical plant
in a small town near Milan, Italy released a large cloud of dioxin that
affected a large portion of Lombardy region. The explosion and
aftermath, including the botched response, led to creation of the
European Community\'s Seveso Directive in 1982.

A central part of the Directive is a requirement for public information
about major industrial hazards and appropriate safety measures in the
event of an accident. It is based on recognition that industrial workers
and the general public need to know about hazards that threaten them and
about safety procedures. This is the first time that the principle of
\"need to know\" has been enshrined in European Community legislation
(Mitchell 1996, part 4).

Much of the Seveso Directive is analogous to EPCRA with additional
elements addressing what are called, in the US, "worker Right-To-Know"
laws. All of this happened several years prior to the Bhopal disaster,
which was part of the impetus for passage of EPCRA in the United States.

Though not regulatory in nature, there are a number of international
standards regarding environmental management that specify a requirement
for emergency plans. The most widely recognized is the ISO 14001
standard for Environmental Management Systems, one element of which
states, "The organization shall establish and maintain procedures to
identify potential for and respond to accidents and emergency
situations, and for preventing and mitigating the environmental impacts
that may be associated with them" (ANSI/ISO 14004-1996, Section 4.4.7).

The objective of the *Guiding Principles for Chemical Accident
Prevention, Preparedness and Response* (2003), published by the European
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development is to "provide
guidance, applicable worldwide ... to prevent accidents involving
hazardous substances and to mitigate the adverse effects of accidents
that do nevertheless occur." This set of principles covers much the same
ground as the EPCRA, the Risk Management program regulations, hazardous
materials transportation regulations, and various environmental and
safety standards in the US. Chapter 5 mandates emergency planning for
protection of environmental media as well as for the protection of
population.

**The nexus of environmental management, development, and disaster
risk**

Considerable research and analysis has been done by the European Union
and the United Nations to illuminate the connections among environmental
hazards, sustainable development strategies (especially in the poorer
countries), and disaster response and management. *Living with Risk*
(2004), produced by the UN International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction, puts it most succinctly:

The environment and disasters are inherently linked. Environmental
degradation affects natural processes, alters humanity's resource base
and increases vulnerability. It exacerbates the impact of natural
hazards, lessens overall resilience and challenges traditional coping
strategies. Furthermore, effective and economical solutions to reduce
risk can be overlooked.... Although the links between disaster reduction
and environmental management are recognized, little research and policy
work has been undertaken on the subject. The concept of using
environmental tools for disaster reduction has not yet been widely
applied by practitioners (p.298).

The UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction also focuses on the
transboundary nature of disasters and the importance of a "harmonized
approach" to the management of pollution of river basins, seismic hazard
areas, and volcanoes (*Disaster Reduction and Sustainable Development*
2003, p.13). This issue is perhaps less salient in the United States,
due to the extent of Federal disaster management and response.

Researchers in the Swedish Embassy in Bangkok have sought to link
environmental programs with disaster risk in the context of sustainable
development. They ask:

-   How can investments in environmental management and sustainable
    development also reduce disaster risk?

-   Is there a *prevention dividend* [^6] that accrues from wise land
    use planning and development programs?

-   Can *prevention dividends* be measured; and, how might the ability
    to estimate these added values enhance policy and program planning?
    (Dolcemascolo 2004, p.1)

Although they find evidence for positive answers to these questions,
they acknowledge that more research and analysis is necessary in order
to capture the rather elusive cost/benefit parameters of disaster
reduction and sustainable development.

**Zones of convergence**

*Living with Risk* (2004, p. 303) outlines ways to integrate
environmental and disaster reduction strategies:

-   assessment of environmental causes of hazards occurrence and
    vulnerability

-   assessment of environmental actions that can reduce vulnerability

-   assessment of the environmental consequences of disaster reduction
    actions

-   consideration of environmental services in decision-making processes

-   partnerships and regional approaches to land use and nature
    conservation

-   reasonable alternatives to conflicts concerning alternative uses of
    resources

-   advice and information to involve actors in enhancing the quality of
    the environment.

Within this context, there are a number of areas where environmental
management and emergency management can and should interact more
positively for mutual benefit and support.

Both fields would benefit from continuing and supporting the current
movement in the disaster community from "reactive" disaster response to
active risk management and from iterative recovery to pro-active
mitigation and prevention. Parallel efforts would transition the
environmental field from contaminant clean-up to risk reduction and
pollution prevention, from discrete issues management to environmental
management systems, and from flood control to floodplain management (see
Philippi, 1996).

Integration of sustainability considerations into disaster mitigation
and recovery can exploit the considerable overlap between environmental
management and disaster management. Planners and practitioners in both
fields must recognize that the overall objectives of these fields
implicitly promote sustainable communities. Sustainability should be
considered both prospectively (in sustainable development planning and
mitigation) and retrospectively (in response and recovery). This
integration would incorporate and enhance current trends toward
"holistic disaster recovery" (also "sustainable recovery") that
emphasize betterment of the entire community, including environmental
improvement and enhancement, through the recovery process (*Holistic
Disaster Recovery* 2001). *Living with Risk* (2004) is even more direct:

> Disaster reduction specialists should be encouraged to anticipate
> environmental requirements under applicable laws and to design
> projects that address these requirements, coordinating closely with
> environmental institutions (p. 302).

Environmental management professionals can make considerable
contributions during the mitigation and recovery phases of emergency
management. They can identify possible improvements and enhancements as
well as things to avoid. More importantly, after enhancements or
improvements are in place, they can monitor and assess environmental
performance indicators to ensure that goals are met. Environmental
assessments should be integrated into emergency planning processes,
following the Environmental Impact Statement model mandated by the
National Environmental Protection Act. Environmental Impact Statements
should (but currently do not) specifically include disaster-hazard
considerations. Rapid environmental assessments should be conducted as
part of disaster damage assessment and should be an integral part of
response/recovery considerations (Kelly 2001).

Both environmental managers and emergency managers must be cognizant of
the importance of environmental justice/equity issues in the context of
hazard and vulnerability. Hazards of any type have a disproportionate
impact on the poor and disadvantaged. A number of thorny equity issues
are coming to a head in the environmental management world, among them:
industrial plant and landfill siting; development in industrial or
depressed areas; residential settlement on slopes or in other marginal
areas; higher population density; immigrants and language differences;
differential access to social services and information sources. Most of
these issues have not yet been adequately addressed in emergency
management planning or community dialogue.

The United States (and, to a certain extent, other nations) has become
sensitized to the possibility that terrorists might attack with Weapons
of Mass Destruction (nerve agents, bioweapons, "dirty bombs"). The
unpleasant reality is that terrorists don't have to try that hard to
create death and destruction. The ubiquitous gasoline tanker would make
a handy (and easily procured) bomb; there are over 20,000 chemical
plants in the US that contain enough extremely hazardous materials to
require reporting under EPCRA. The existence and availability of these
and other so-called "weapons of convenience" will require a much closer
and more explicit cooperation between environmental professionals and
emergency managers to: assess the immediate and long-term threats; to
identify both mitigation and response strategies; and to manage
long-term recovery and clean-up operations.

# Environmental management and the four phases of emergency management

At the most practical and operational levels, environmental
professionals can contribute directly to the practice of emergency
management throughout all four phases.

## Mitigation

-   Inventory environmental assets

-   Identify environmental projects and environmental enhancement
    opportunities as part of hazard mitigation planning

-   Integrate local land use and growth management ordinances into
    hazard mitigation planning

-   Assist in developing Hazard Mitigation Plans

-   Establish and monitor Environmental Performance Indicators for
    assessing progress & operation of environmental projects conducted
    as part of mitigation

-   Identify and monitor environmental regulatory requirements

-   Identify and monitor government funding programs to support
    environmental mitigation actions

## Preparedness

-   Identify/assess environmental vulnerabilities and threats (analysis
    of Environmental Impact Statements)

-   Review emergency management policies, plans, and procedures for
    potential environmental impacts

-   Assist in emergency preparedness planning (especially for hazardous
    materials incidents)

-   Assist in the activities of the Local Emergency Planning Committee
    (under EPCRA)

-   Assist in developing response procedures to ensure that
    environmental factors/hazards are addressed

## Response

-   Conduct Environmental Impact Assessments

-   Identify environmental threats/damage related to disaster effects

-   Assist in response to environmental hazards or emergencies (e.g.,
    orphan drums; releases; etc.)

## Recovery 

-   Identify environmental damage

-   Identify possible recovery options for environmentally sensitive
    areas

-   Identify enhancements to environmental assets/resource for recovery

-   Monitor Environmental Performance Indicators (short & long-term)

-   Assist in and monitor debris removal and clean-up (e.g., for
    hazardous materials/wastes problems)

-   Identify and monitor environmental regulatory requirements.

-   Identify and monitor government funding programs to support
    environmental mitigation actions

# Conclusion

Considering the extent to which the concepts and practices of
environmental management and emergency management overlap and
interpenetrate, it is surprising to see the number of publications that
examine how the two fields should (and by implication do not) interact
in mutually-supportive ways. The most common connection between the two
fields usually occurs in the setting of Local Emergency Planning
Committee activities to plan for response to chemical spills and
releases. Emergency managers largely ignore the full range of
environmental issues. When issues and practices do come into conflict
(e.g., thinning the forests; use of dispersants in chemical spills), it
is vital that environmental management have a seat at the table. Both
disciplines must cooperatively seek solutions that will maximize
environmental quality as well as meet the needs of disaster preparedness
and recovery.

Researchers and practitioners in other countries -- particularly in the
European Union and Asia -- have paid considerably more attention to the
effects of environmental conditions on disaster vulnerability and to the
necessity of adding an environmental consciousness to the planning for
and implementation of disaster response. We have much to learn from our
colleagues overseas regarding the most fruitful cooperation between
environmental management and emergency management.

**Bibliography**

Allaby, Michael. 1996. *Basics of Environmental Science.* New York:
Routledge.

Aptekar, Lewis. 1994. *Environmental Disasters in Global Perspective*.
New York: G.K. Hall; Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan Canada; New York:
Maxwell Macmillan International.

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

"Community cooperation in the field of civil protection." 1999. European
Commission, Directorate-General XI, Environment, Nuclear Safety and
Civil Protection. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities; Lanham, Nd.: Bernan Associates \[distributor\].

Cutter, Susan L. (ed.). 2001. *American Hazardscapes: the
Regionalization of Hazards and Disasters.* Washington, DC: Joseph Henry
Press.

Dayton-Johnson, Jeff, "Natural Disasters and Adaptive Capacity." 2004.
OECD Development Centre Working Paper No. 237.
<http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/63/33845215.pdf>

*Disaster Reduction and Sustainable Development: Understanding the Links
between Vulnerability and Risk to Disasters Related to Development and
Environment*. 2003. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction.

<http://www.unisdr.org/eng/risk-reduction/wssd/DR-and-SD-English.pdf>

Dolcemascolo, Glenn. 2004. *Environmental Degradation and Disaster
Risk***.** Prepared for the Embassy of Sweden/Sida Bangkok**.** Asian
Disaster Preparedness Center.

[http://www.sida.se/content/1/c6/03/03/92/Environmental%20Degradation%20and%20Disaster%20Risk.pdf](http://www.sida.se/content/1/c6/03/03/92/Environmental Degradation and Disaster Risk.pdf)

Dunlap, Riley E. and Angela G. Mertig. 1992. *American Environmentalism:
The U.S. Environmental Movement, 1970-1990.* Philadelphia: Taylor &
Francis.

Ellis, Derek V. 1989. *Environments at Risk: Case Histories of Impact
Assessment***.** Berlin; New York: Springer-Verlag.

*Environmental Management Systems -- General guidance on principles,
systems and supporting techniques*. American Society for Quality.
ANSI/ISO 14004-1996.

"EU focus on civil protection: coping with catastrophes -- coordinating
civil protection in the European Union." 2002. European Commission,
Environment Directorate-General**.** Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities.

"Executive Order 12856: federal compliance with right-to-know laws and
pollution prevention requirements**."** August 3, 1993. Washington, DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Foster, Kenneth R., Paolo Vecchia, and Michael H. Repacholi. 2000.
\"Science and the Precautionary Principle.\" [Science]{.underline}, May
12, 2000, 979-981.

Gee, David. 2001. *Late Lessons from Early Warnings -- the Precautionary
Principle 1896-2000*. Environmental Issue Report #22. European
Environment Agency. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities.

Gottlieb, Robert. 1993. *Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the
American Environmental Movement.* Washington, DC: Island Press.

*Holistic Disaster Recovery: Ideas for Building Local Sustainability
after a Natural Disaster*. 2001. Natural Hazards Research and
Applications Information Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

"Implementation guidelines for Canadian Environmental Protection Act,
1999." Section 199, authorities for requiring environmental emergency
plans. Environmental Emergencies Program (Canada).

Jackson, Suzan L. 1997. *The ISO 14001 Implementation Guide*. New York:
Wiley & Sons.

Kelly, Charles, 2001. "Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment: A
Framework for Best Practice in Emergency Response." Benfield Greig
Hazard Research Centre, University College, London.
<http://www.benfieldhrc.org/SiteRoot/disaster_studies/working_papers/workingpaper3.pdf>

Lachman, Beth E*.* 1997. *Linking Sustainable Community Activities to
Pollution Prevention: A Sourcebook*. Washington, DC: Rand Critical
Technologies Institute.

<http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR855/>

*Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives*.
2004. Inter-Agency Secretariat of the International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR).

<http://www.unisdr.org/eng/about_isdr/bd-lwr-2004-eng.htm>

Lundgren, Regina E. and Andrea H. McMakin. 2004. *Risk Communication: A
Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety, And Health Risks***.**
Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.

Mattei, Suzanne, *Pollution and Deception at Ground Zero*: *How the Bush
Administration's Reckless Disregard of 9/11 Toxic Hazards Poses
Long-Term Threats for New York City and the Nation.* Sierra Club, (no
date). <http://www.sierraclub.org/groundzero/report.pdf>

<http://www.sierraclub.org/groundzero/summary.asp>

May, Peter J., Raymond J. Burby, Neil J. Ericksen, John W. Handmer,
Jennifer E. Dixon, Sarah Michaels, and D. Ingle Smith. 1996.
*Environmental Management and Governance: Intergovernmental Approaches
To Hazards and Sustainability*. London; New York: Routledge.

Mileti, Dennis S*.* 1999. *Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of
Natural Hazards in*

*the United States*. Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press.

Mitchell, James K. (ed.). 1996. *The Long Road to Recovery: Community
Responses to Industrial Disaster*. Tokyo - New York -- Paris: United
Nations University Press.

<http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu21le/uu21le00.htm>

*OECD Guiding Principles for Chemical Accident Prevention, Preparedness
and Response*. 2003. OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications.
Series on Chemical Accidents, No. 10.
<http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/37/2789820.pdf>

Parker, Ronald, Alcira Kreimer, and Mohan Munasinghe (eds.). 1995.
*Informal Settlements, Environmental Degradation, and Disaster
Vulnerability: The Turkey Case Study.*

Geneva, Switzerland: International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction
(IDNDR); Washington, DC: World Bank.

Pelling, Mark (ed.). 2003a. *Natural Disasters and Development in A
Globalizing World.* London; New York: Routledge.

\_\_\_\_\_\_. 2003b. *The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and
Social Resilience.* London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications.

Philippi, Nancy S. 1996. *Floodplain Management: Ecologic and Economic
Perspectives***.** San Diego, CA: Academic Press; Austin, T.: R.G.
Landes.

Piasecki, Bruce. 1995. *Corporate Environmental Strategy: The Avalanche
of Change since Bhopal.* New York: J. Wiley & Sons.

\_\_\_\_\_\_, Kevin A. Fletcher, and Frank J. Mendelson. 1999.
*Environmental Management and Business Strategy.* New York: J. Wiley &
Sons.

*Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development*. 2004. United
Nations Development Programme, Bureau for Crisis Prevention and
Recovery. New York. [www.undp.org/bcpr](http://www.undp.org/bcpr)

Saurí i Pujol, David. 2004. *Mapping the impacts of recent natural
disasters and technological accidents in Europe.* Luxembourg: Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities.

<http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_issue_report_2004_35/en/accidents_032004.pdf>

Shrivastava, Paul. 1987. *Bhopal: Anatomy of a Crisis***.** Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger Pub. Co.

Smith, Keith. 1996. *Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing
Disaster.* London; New York: Routledge.

Speth, James. 2004. *Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the
Global Environment.* New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

Tickner, Joel A. (ed.). 2003. *Precaution, Environmental Science, and
Preventive Public Policy.* Washington, DC: Island Press.

van Aalst, Maarten, and Ian Burton. 2002. "The Last Straw; Integrating
Natural Disaster Mitigation with Environmental Management." Disaster
Risk Management Working Paper Series No. 5. The World Bank.
<http://www.worldbank.org/hazards/files/last_straw_final.pdf>

Varley, Anne. 1994. *Disasters, Development and Environment.*
Chichester; New York: J. Wiley.

Wall, Derek. 1994. *Green History: A Reader in Environmental Literature,
Philosophy,*

*and Politics.* London; New York: Routledge.

Warren, Louis S. (ed.). 2003. *American Environmental History***.**
Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.

Weir, David. 1987. *The Bhopal Syndrome: Pesticides, Environment, and
Health***.** San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Wisner, B. & J. Adams (eds.). 2002. *Environmental Health in Emergencies
and Disasters: A Practical Guide***.** Geneva: World Health
Organization.

<http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/hygiene/emergencies/emergencies2002/en/>

[^1]: Flippen, J. B., "Richard Nixon and the Triumph of
    Environmentalism." in Warren 2003, pp. 272-289

[^2]: A number of accounts have estimated that 20 million participated
    across the country, in addition to 2,000 colleges and universities.
    See Flippen.

[^3]: \"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the
    environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some
    cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established
    scientifically.\" *from the January 1998 Wingspread Statement on the
    Precautionary Principle.*

[^4]: Meteorological drought -- a departure from anticipated mean
    rainfall. Hydrological drought --a reduction in available water
    relative to local demands. Agricultural drought -- changes in
    timing, frequency or intensity of the rainfall that have specific
    implications for crop yield. (Dolcemascolo 2004, p. 16)

[^5]: Or another perspective: "An environmental disaster is the county
    deciding to build a wastewater treatment plant half a mile upwind
    from my house."

[^6]: "...*the values of foregone disaster losses that accrue from well
    designed and implemented disaster risk reduction measures, including
    environmental management and sustainable development initiatives*."