 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
February 07, 2006
Lindell on evacuation
Posted to Author: Vranes, K. | Disasters
This morning I sat in on the first half of the National Science Board meeting in Boulder on "Toward a National Agenda for Hurricane Science and Engineering" (agenda link).
I have a couple of thoughts that I'll spread out over two or three posts. (Roger gave a presentation at the meeting so he'll probably have his own thoughts, too.) Here's my first thought:
In a powerpoint presentation, Professor Michael Lindell of the Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center at Texas A&M threw out a bullet point that said, "Evacuation is a sign of policy failure."
This was said in a context of presenting evacuation as a very expensive, unpredictable, and largely unmanageable undertaking. He went on to say that the necessity for emergency evacuation means that intelligent pre-event planning was not in place and that building structures were not designed or retrofitted to withstand the hurricane event (obviating the need for evacuation).
I focused on the last. I can buy labeling "evacuation" as a "policy failure." But I wonder if it's possible that evacuation is actually less expensive than the total cost that would be involved in preventing its necessity, especially on the engineering side. Retrofitting buildings is extremely expensive (price per square foot to retrofit buildings for earthquake resilience is so much more expensive than new construction that generally only historical buildings are retrofitted....great example is this awesome building and retrofit project).
So it's possible that in not addressing the evacuation vs. resilience problem, decision makers are getting the right answer (coming out on the cheaper side) for the wrong reason (not even addressing the issue). I discussed this with Michael after his panel discussion and he agreed that the numbers should be examined but haven't yet been.
Posted on February 7, 2006 01:54 PMComments
It is not the cost of evacuation so much as the cost of rebuilding/relocation after the big one hits. You do have to move the evacuees somewhere after their city is detroyed, and that is without even wondering about rebuilding.
Thus the choice is not between retrofitting and evacuating, but between retrofitting over some long(ish) period of time and rebuilding/relocating after the destruction. Clearly the former is cheaper.
Posted by: Rabett at February 7, 2006 06:10 PM
Hi,
If the problem with evacuation is as Rabett says the cost of rebuilding, housing people while doing so and so on, then "evacuation" is not the problem. In fact it is really misleading as there would be no contradiction between building more sustainable buildings and evacuation - it is a false dichotomy. The "best" policy in terms of overall cost might well be
- zoning the worst areas so minimal buildings are there
- requiring building in the next areas to be either proof of expected storms, or be easily replacable. Or easily cleanable, but not suitable for people to stay in when the storm hits.
- Evacuate people when storms are close.
I have no idea of the economic features of this approach vs. some overarching rebuilding and moving that would seem to me to be very inflexible. I cannot see where evacuation should be ruled out as a tool of good planning, I think that is bad unrealistic planning.
I am definitely agreeing with this:
Thus the choice is not between retrofitting and evacuating, but between retrofitting over some long(ish) period of time and rebuilding/relocating after the destruction. Clearly the former is cheaper.
but not with the description in the original post.
Posted by: Markk at February 8, 2006 11:08 AM
There is a saying in the hurricane biz: Hide from the wind, run from the water. This means that we should have buildings inwhich people can hide safely from the wind and not be in fear. But we can not build buildings that protect from rising water, at least, not cost effectively. It will always be necessary to evacuate those areas that will flood!
Markk's solution of simply not building in areas that might flood is unrealistic, as those areas are some of the most prime realestate in the nation. People want to live on or near the coast. I don't see any reason to stop them, as long as they know that some day, their property will likely be destroyed. Of course, I also don't see any reason to supplement their beach front lifestyles with my tax dollars each time a storm hits, but that is another story.
Generally, I agree with Lindell. During the recent (pre-1995) lull in hurricanes, millions moved to the coastal regions of the United States, particularly Florida. The long-time locals lived in stilt homes with hip roofs, but the new arrivals prefered the gabled-end roofs and surface living they were used to up north. Hurricane Andrew demonstrated what a failure in pre-planning that was, but it still took the state about a dozen years to enact a building code that makes sense.
In the last 2 years, the new code has proved its worth just about every time, as structures built within the last few years have had almost no wind damage from the recent spat of storms. This new code adds about 5% to the cost of a home or building, which is cheap for the benefit, and has not slowed home sales a bit (as the building lobby so feared).
Retrofitting is expensive and a difficult sell. It is propably best to let the old mistakes run their course and just make sure we are wiser from here on out!
Posted by: Jim Clarke at February 10, 2006 06:22 AM