R E V I E W : N A T U R A L H A Z A R D S A N D P O L I C Y

Mitigation Emerges as Major Strategy forReducing Losses Caused by Natural Disasters

Board on Natural Disasters*

The International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction, a United Nations programfor the 1990s, focused attention on the increasing losses caused by natural hazardsand promoted actions to reduce their impacts. During this period in the United States,disaster managers and other officials increased emphasis on mitigation relative toresponse and recovery, especially in programs of the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency. Many other nations and international organizations undertook similar efforts.Beyond the Decade, efforts should focus on improving risk assessments; implementingmitigation strategies; improving technologies supporting warnings and the dissemi-nation of, and response to, warnings; improving the basis for natural disaster insur-ance; and assisting developing nations.

Mounting losses in human casualtiesand property damage motivated theUnited Nations to declare the 1990sas the International Decade for Natural Dis-aster Reduction (IDNDR). Several disasterswith large losses in the early 1990s under-scored the need for this initiative. The naturalhazards specified by the United Nations wereearthquakes, windstorms, tsunamis, floods,landslides, volcanic eruptions, wildfires,grasshopper and locust infestations, anddrought and desertification. To conduct theIDNDR, the United Nations established asecretariat in Geneva, Switzerland, a 25-member Scientific and Technical Committee(STC), and called on member states to formnational committees, or designate focal points,to coordinate national-level activities. In theUnited States, the Subcommittee on NaturalDisaster Reduction (1) coordinated federalagency programs under the National Scienceand Technology Council. In addition, the Na-tional Research Council, through the U.S.National Committee for the IDNDR and theBoard on Natural Disasters (BOND) (2), pro-vided an overview on U.S. activities andhelped to link the public and private sectors.

A World Conference on Natural Disaster Re-duction held in Yokohama, Japan, during1994 (3) reviewed Decade accomplishmentsand called for increased emphasis on imple-mentation of scientific and technical knowl-edge for reducing disaster losses.

As the Decade enters it final stage, wereview salient achievements and look ahead.It is clear that during the Decade there hasbeen a significant shift in managing naturaldisasters, moving away from the traditionalfocus on response and recovery toward em-phasis on mitigation, that is, preventiveactions to reduce the effects of a naturalhazard.

Natural Disaster LossesMany nations experience fatalities and in-juries, property damage, and economic andsocial disruption resulting from natural dis-asters. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods,drought, earthquakes, and winter storms re-peatedly ravage parts of the United States.Natural hazards were among the decadesdefining events in the United States: theNorthridge earthquake (1994), Hurricane An-drew (1992), fires in California (1993) andFlorida (1998), flooding of the MississippiRiver (1993) and the Red River in the north(1997) (Fig. 1), and widespread tornadoes inOklahoma and Kansas (early May 1999)(Fig. 2). The direct losses of about $44 billionfor the Northridge earthquake and $30 billionfor Hurricane Andrew, which rank theseevents as the costliest in U.S. history, sub-stantially impacted their regions and the in-surance industry.

Not only have these recent U.S. naturaldisaster losses been substantial, but also thetrend in annual losses has been markedlyupward (4) (Fig. 3). Most of this increasecannot be attributed to increased occurrence

of hazards. Although some types of events,for example heavy rains, have increased infrequency since the 1950s, others such ashurricane landfalls in the eastern UnitedStates have declined. Thus, it is difficult toattribute U.S. disaster loss increases in anysignificant measure to this factor. Instead,they can be attributed to several other fac-tors. In the last several decades populationin the United States has migrated towardthe coasts, concentrating along the earth-quake-prone Pacific coast and the hurri-cane-prone Atlantic and Gulf coasts, andthe value of their possessions has increasedsubstantially. Floridas population has in-creased fivefold since 1950, and now 80%of it lives within 35 km of the coast. Sim-ilarly, in California the population has in-creased from 10 million in 1950 to thecurrent level of 33 million. In addition,population has concentrated in large cities,which serve as hubs for communications,transportation, commerce, and governmentand require complex infrastructures, someof which have aged to the point of unreli-ability. Many elements of these complexinfrastructures are highly vulnerable tobreakdowns that can be triggered by rela-tively minor events. Failure of a single spanof the Bay Bridge disrupted traffic for sev-eral months in the San Francisco area afterthe Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 (5).Less dramatically, failure to remove aground connection shut down San Fran-ciscos electrical power for most of a day inDecember 1998. In short, the United Stateshas more to lose than ever beforesomecomponents of its infrastructure are highlyvulnerable to damage and disruption, and

*The authors are members of the Board on NaturalDisasters (BOND) of the National Research Council,2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC20418, USA. Members of BOND: Wilfred D. Iwan,Chair, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena;Lloyd S. Cluff, Pacific Gas and Electric, San Francisco,CA; James F. Kimpel, University of Oklahoma, Nor-man; Howard Kunreuther, Wharton School, Universityof Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; Stephanie H. Masaki-Schatz, Ranchos Palos Verdes, CA; Joanne M. Nigg,Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware,Newark; Richard S. Roth Sr., Northbrook, IL; HarveyRyland, Institute for Business and Home Safety, Bos-ton, MA; Ellis Stanley Sr., Los Angeles, CA; and FrankH. Thomas, Loudon, TN. National Research Councilstaff contributing to this article are Robert M. Ham-ilton, Patricia A. Jones, and Stephen D. Parker.

Fig. 1. Red River flowing over the Sorlie Bridge,Grand Forks, North Dakota, during the recordflood in the spring of 1997. [Photo courtesy ofthe U.S. Geological Survey]

S C I E N C E S C O M P A S S c R E V I E W

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 284 18 JUNE 1999 1943

on A

ugus

t 21,

201

5w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from

on A

ugus

t 21,

201

5w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from

on A

ugus

t 21,

201

5w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from

on A

ugus

t 21,

201

5w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from

on A

ugus

t 21,

201

5w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from

much of its population is located in areas atrisk to natural disasters.

The earthquake that struck Kobe, Japan,in 1995 caused direct losses in excess of $100billion, perhaps as much as $200 billion, anddemonstrated the potential for disasters in theUnited States and other countries on a similarscale. Such a threat calls for action, but re-ducing potential losses for existing structuresand systems by a substantial amount is costly,difficult, and perhaps impossible. Neverthe-less, actions can be taken to avoid creatingadditional vulnerabilities and, in some cases,to reduce existing ones. This reality is help-ing to shape a new vision of the future amongdisaster managers and political leaders.

Emergence of MitigationThe two basic approaches for reducing theimpacts of natural disasters are mitigationand response. Mitigation includes all thoseactions that are taken before, during, and afterthe occurrence of a natural event that mini-mize its impacts, and response includes thoseactions that are taken during and immediatelyafter the event to reduce suffering and hastenrecovery of the affected population and re-gion. Mitigation includes avoiding hazards,for example, by building out of a flood plainor away from seismically active faults, or byproviding warnings to enable evacuation inthe periods immediately preceding hazardssuch as floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes. Italso includes reducing vulnerability throughfloodproofing of buildings or strengtheningof structures to withstand the loads imposedby seismic shaking or wind. Response in-cludes both the short-term emergency actionstaken by police, fire, and other agencies aswell as the longer-term actions taken to meetneeds for food, shelter, rebuilding, and resto-ration of the affected community. Both ele-ments are important in dealing with naturalhazards, but in past practice just onere-sponsehas predominated.

Mitigation planning should be incorporat-ed in or carefully coordinated with land-useplanning for community development. In this

way, communities can find opportunities foraccommodating development demands in ar-eas less vulnerable to natural hazards. Com-prehensive mitigation planning includes (i)determining the location and nature of thepotential hazards, (ii) characterizing the pop-ulation and structures (present and future)that are vulnerable to specific hazards, (iii)establishing standards for acceptable levels ofrisk, and (iv) adopting mitigation strategiesbased on an analysis of realistic costs andbenefits.

In practice, mitigation may be difficult toimplement, both politically and economical-ly. Making progress in this endeavor requiresincentives that are both appealing and feasi-ble, long-term commitments by its champi-ons, and an investment of financial resourcesby its backers, usually in the face of a highlyuncertain threat. It is much easier to pass alongthe problem to the next generation. It is there-fore encouraging that mitigation is receivingincreased emphasis, a situation that has comeabout through a combination of circumstances.

In recent years, as natural disaster losseshave mounted, U.S. disaster managers andother decision makers have recognized thatsingular reliance on the strategies of responseand recovery portend continuously escalatingcosts along with the attendant disruptionsassociated with natural disasters. Althoughresponse and recovery are essential for hu-manitarian, economic, and political purposes,they must be accompanied by increasing at-tention to reducing losses through effectivemitigation programs (6).

To this end, numerous governmental andnongovernmental organizations have shiftedpriorities. Most significantly, the FederalEmergency Management Agency (FEMA)has established a Mitigation Directorate, on apar with its Response and Recovery Director-ate, and developed a National MitigationStrategy (7). Moreover, FEMA has movedahead aggressively with Project Impact toimplement mitigation practices in 118 dem-onstration cities and communities, a federalinvestment of about $25 million a year. Theseefforts by FEMA build on substantial work

by other federal agencies, such as the Nation-al Science Foundation, U.S. Geological Sur-vey, and National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, which have funded researchon hazard mitigation for more than 20 yearsto improve understanding of the nature ofnatural hazards and their effects. Also, theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers and NaturalResource Conservation Service conduct sub-stantial mitigation efforts, especially for floodprevention.

Many private-sector companies have in-vested substantial resources to strengthenstructures to withstand the effects of hazards.For example, the Institute for Business andHome Safety, an insurance industrysupport-ed nonprofit organization, has promoted de-velopment of building materials that are moreresistant to hazard-induced damage (hail-re-sistant roofing materials) and adoption andimprovement of building codes. Many busi-nesses have invested substantial funds toavoid damage and business interruptions,with notable success.

International ProgressMany organizations in the United Nations ex-panded or refocused activities in support of theDecade, although financial contributions spe-cifically for the IDNDR (that is, in excess ofregular budgets) amounted to only a few mil-lion dollars a year, with the largest contribu-tions coming from Japan and several Europeancountries. The United States contributed rela-tively little in funds, although the knowledgeand expertise of U.S. scientists and engineersprovided an important resource. Examples ofimportant U.N. organizational activities includeimproved warning systems by the World Me-teorological Organization, structural strength-ening of hospitals by the World Health Orga-nization/Pan-American Health Organization,and educational materials produced by theUnited Nations Educational, Scientific, andCultural Organization. During recent years, theUnited Nations Development Program was as-signed responsibility for promoting and coordi-nating mitigation in developing countries, andthe World Bank established a Disaster Manage-ment Facility to assure that natural hazards areconsidered in development decisions. The Of-fice of the Coordinator for Humanitarian Af-fairs and its predecessor organizations coordi-nated the efforts through the secretariat. Severalinternational, nongovernment organizationsalso participated, notably the International RedCross and the Red Crescent Society.

Activities by international professionalsocieties also contributed significantly. Forexample, the International Association ofSeismology and Physics of the Earths Inte-rior sponsored a global assessment of seismichazards, and the International Association ofVolcanology and Chemistry of the EarthsInterior organized increased monitoring of 17

Fig. 2. One of the many tornadoes that formedin central Oklahoma on 3 May 1999 during thelargest tornado outbreak ever recorded in Okla-homa. [Photo courtesy of the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration]

Fig. 3. Insured catastrophe losses in the Unit-ed States, 1949 to 1998 (in 1998 dollars).[Source: Insurance Services Office, Incorpo-rated, PCS division]

S C I E N C E S C O M P A S S

18 JUNE 1999 VOL 284 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org1944

volcanoes, including Mount Rainier (Fig. 4)and Mauna Loa in the United States. TheInternational Council for Science (ICSU; for-merly the International Council of ScientificUnions) funded and sponsored about 10projects, including ones dealing with land-slides, drought, and tropical cyclones. The In-ternational Lithosphere Program examined thevulnerability of megacities.

The IDNDR plan called for special effortsat the national level, especially in developingcountries, through national committees or fo-cal points. Altogether, about 130 of thesewere formed, but less than half performedeffectively. Some of them were quite success-ful in promoting new efforts; for example, theAustralian National Committee and the fed-eral agency Emergency Management Austra-lia moved ahead in a broad range of mitiga-tion activities in planning, hazards and riskassessment, and assistance to other countriesin the southwestern Pacific region.

Goals for Beyond the IDNDRThe targets that were adopted for the IDNDRwere for each nation to assess risks fromnatural hazards, complete mitigation plans,and establish warning and preparedness sys-tems. In the United States, significant progresswas made in this regard, but much remains tobe accomplished. For example, the regionsthat are prone to the various hazards havebeen delineated at a national scale (8), buthazard assessments that are useful for localrisk assessments have been completed foronly a few regions. With regard to mitigationplanning, FEMAs National Mitigation Strat-egy lays out a conceptual approach, but im-plementing the concepts is proving to be aslow process. As evidenced recently in Okla-homa and Kansas, warnings for weather phe-nomena have been improved with greater useof satellites and the Doppler radar system bythe National Weather Service, but much ad-ditional research is needed to fully utilize thenew information. For the decades beyond theIDNDR, efforts to reduce losses from naturaldisasters should move forward in all aspectsof mitigation (6) with a focus in the follow-ing high-priority areas.

Improve risk assessments. Risk assess-ments are derived by first assessing the like-lihood that a particular type of natural hazardwill strike an area, including its frequency ofoccurrence and severity, and combining thisinformation with both an inventory of struc-tures that would be exposed to the hazard andwith fragility data (estimates of the degree ofdamage that various classes of structures, forexample, unreinforced masonry buildings inearthquake-prone areas, will suffer at speci-fied levels of stress or exposure). Risk assess-ments are needed to increase public aware-ness of the threat posed by natural hazardsand to guide allocation of resources [pp. 719

in (3); (5)].Substantial progress has been made in

recent years in modeling risk. There is broadinterest in this tool not only as a means ofdescribing disasters and estimating theircosts, but also as a way to evaluate differentdisaster mitigation strategies. FEMA, in co-operation with the National Institute of Build-ing Sciences, has developed Geographic In-formation System (GIS)based earthquakeloss estimation methodology called HAZUS(Hazards United States) for this purpose. Thistool is currently being used to estimate earth-quake losses nationally and in large metro-politan areas like San Francisco, Portland,Boston, and New York City. Efforts are un-derway to extend the GIS loss-modeling ca-pability to flood and wind hazards. Risk-modeling techniques are increasingly beingused to guide decisions by private as well aspublic entities, for example, to estimate prob-able maximum loss and average annual lossfor the insurance sector. The confidence thatcan be placed in decisions made from riskmodeling is strongly dependent on the levelof uncertainty that is present in the models.Accurate hazard assessments are an essentialstarting point and need to be combined withcomprehensive building inventories. The fra-gility data are often a particularly weak ele-ment in these models, which could be im-proved by more comprehensive field investi-gations after the disaster, data compilations,improvements in response analyses, and full-scale testing.

Implement mitigation strategies. Commu-nities can often achieve significant reductionsin losses from natural disasters by adoptingland-use plans that avoid the hazards [pp.2139 in (3)] while at the same time achiev-ing environmental and other goals. To citeone example, some cities in flood-prone areasthat undertook to manage the hazard reducedflood-plain development to less than 25% ofwhat would have occurred without the localplanning programs, yielding $11 million inreduced property damage per year, with an-nual administrative and private costs of only$1.3 million (9). Few local governments,however, are willing to adopt land-use mea-

sures to protect against natural hazards unlessthey receive strong mandates from higherlevel governments (10). Land-use approachesrequire accurate identification of areas affect-ed by hazards, but hazard-zone mapping maybe too expensive for some municipalities. Anadditional complication is that hazards oftenspan jurisdictional boundaries, which neces-sitates cooperation. For hazards land-use plan-ning to be implemented, the public must findthe hazards threat to be credible.

Building codes are also effective for re-ducing disaster losses [pp. 2139 in (3); (5)].A building code sets standards that guide theconstruction of new buildings and, in somecases, the rehabilitation of existing structures.Currently, building codes set minimum con-struction standards for life safety. However,maintaining the functionality of structures isalso important and may be critical for certainclasses of structures, for example those thatare essential for public safety. Through Ex-ecutive Orders (11) the federal governmentestablished seismic safety standards for fed-erally funded new construction, and ad-dressed seismic safety for existing owned andleased buildings. Some states have codes thatare set at the state level but enforced at thelocal level, whereas other states let local gov-ernments set and enforce their own standards;however, more than half of the 30,000 com-munities in the United States have not adopt-ed a building code at all. Of course, buildingcodes are not effective unless they are en-forced, which requires an ongoing inspectionprogram, and many communities lack a suf-ficient number of inspectors. More than 25%of the damage from Hurricane Andrew couldhave been prevented if the existing buildingcodes had been enforced (12). A seal ofapproval for structures that meet buildingcodes has been proposed as a way to encour-age improved building practices and to in-form prospective buyers about structuralsafety (13).

Many structures that house low-incomefamilies are relatively unsafe with respect tonatural hazards, either because of poor struc-tural quality or risk-prone locations. Suchfamilies often cannot afford the costs of re-

Fig. 4. Mount Rainier at 4393 m, thehighest peak in the Cascade Range,is a dormant volcano whose load ofglacier ice exceeds that of any othermountain in the conterminous Unit-ed States. This tremendous mass ofrock and ice, in combination withgreat topographic relief, poses a va-riety of geologic hazards, both dur-ing inevitable future eruptions andduring the intervening periods of re-pose. It is considered the most dan-gerous volcano in the CascadeRange because of the large popula-tion surrounding it. [Photo courtesyof the U.S. Geological Survey]

S C I E N C E S C O M P A S S

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 284 18 JUNE 1999 1945

pair, reconstruction, or relocation. Equityconsiderations argue for providing this groupwith low-interest loans and grants. Becauselow-income victims are likely to receive fed-eral assistance to cover uninsured losses aftera disaster, subsidizing these mitigation mea-sures can also be justified on cost-effective-ness grounds.

A community could also encourage itsresidents to engage in mitigation measures byproviding them with tax or other financialincentives. For example, homeowners couldget a tax rebate by undertaking a mitigationmeasure, thereby lowering the costs for di-saster relief. Alternatively, property taxescould be lowered for the same reason. Unfor-tunately, communities often create monetarydisincentives to invest in mitigation. A prop-erty owner who improves a home to make itsafer is likely to have the property reassessedat a higher value and hence have to payhigher taxes. California has been cognizant ofthis problem and voters passed Proposition127 in 1990 that exempts seismic rehabilita-tion improvements to buildings from beingreassessed to increase property taxes. Thecity of Berkeley has taken an additional stepto encourage home buyers to retrofit theirnewly purchased homes by instituting a trans-fer-tax rebate. The city taxes property transfertransactions at a rate of 1.5%, and up toone-third of this amount can be applied toseismic upgrades during the sale of property.Qualifying upgrades include repairing or re-placing foundations, bracing basement walls,installing shear walls, anchoring water heat-ers, and securing chimneys. Since 1993,about 6300 houses have been improved, rep-resenting about $4.4 million in foregone rev-enues to the city (14).

In major urban centers (megacities),the vulnerability of infrastructure, telecom-munications, and lifeline corridors makes itimportant to have backup or redundant sys-tems to provide needed services should adisaster damage or destroy critical facili-ties. To illustrate this point, consider thecrucial role of electricity in maintainingsocial and economic systems. Disasterdamage to an electricity network may cre-ate havoc to a wide area as a result ofindirect losses such as disruption of pro-duction in businesses, impaired hospitalsand health facilities, and transportationproblems due to nonfunctioning traffic sig-nals, street lights, and safety alarms. Themajor mechanisms that society has devel-oped to cope with electrical power failuresare emergency or back-up generators andstructural reinforcement of network facili-ties (15 ).

The economic, social, and political factorsthat influence the adoption of mitigationstrategies are extremely complex (16). Theseinclude budget considerations, cultural norms,

enforcement issues, and the tendency tomaintain the status quo. In examining therange of mitigation measures to develop astrategy, one needs to target their adoption tospecific situations. It is necessary to recog-nize that the opportunities for using certainmeasures will change as events unfold. Forexample, immediately after Hurricane An-drew in 1992 there was renewed interest inenforcing building codes, whereas before theevent or even a few years after it occurred,the concern with mitigation was not a highpriority on communities agendas.

Improve technologies that supportwarnings and the dissemination of, andresponse to, warnings. Warnings are essen-tial to prepare for a hazardous situation,such as an oncoming tornado, hurricane, orflood, and to move people out of harmsway, if necessary [pp. 41 61 in (3)]. To bemost effective, warnings must be coupledwith a forecasting system that provides pre-warning data and with predetermined loss-reduction action plans. Warnings must specifythe time, location, and severity of expectedevents with appropriate uncertainty bounds ina manner that allows actions to be taken forthe survival of people and the protection ofproperty and institutions. Some warnings areprovided before a disaster ever develops inthe form of maps that delineate hazard zones,signs posted in certain areas, or regulationsthat require real estate agents to inform po-tential property owners as to the nature of thehazard in their area. Other warnings, such asmedia announcements to evacuate hazardousareas, try to reduce losses just before theonset of an event.

Accurate and relevant information canbe used to substantially reduce potentiallosses in many threatening situations (17 ),for example, airplanes can be directedaround a volcanic ash cloud or property canbe removed from an area about to be flood-ed. To be most effective, the informationmust be timely and in a form that is under-standable by decision-makers. Recent ad-vances in technology, such as high-speedcomputing and communications systems,combined with more comprehensive infor-mation resources and advanced GIS make auseful disaster information network feasi-ble. It is now possible to rapidly integratereal-time data with archival data to produceinformation for critical decision making.For example, the dispersal pattern of fumesfrom a chemical spill can be predicted byusing current weather data to identifythreatened populations and evacuationroutes. The foundation for such a networkalready exists, and moving ahead is largelya matter of coordination to set standardsand protocols (5 ).

Improve the basis for natural disaster in-surance. Insurance is a widely used financial

instrument for protection against catastrophicloss [pp. 3738 in (3)]. Insurance and finan-cial institutions are increasingly active in for-mulating disaster policy and in promotingrisk-reduction measures. By providing incen-tives for reducing vulnerability and byspreading risk, the efforts of the financialsector can reduce losses and moderate theireconomic impact.

Insurance should reward individualswho invest in hazard-reduction measuresboth before and after a disaster. Insuredindividuals should receive lower premiumsfor adopting mitigation measures before adisaster because the potential losses to theinsurer are thus reduced. If they suffer loss-es to their structure, they will receive claimpayments for the insured portion of theirdamage. Insurers also have the option ofrefusing to provide coverage unless theprospective policyholder undertakes certainprotective measures to lower the potentiallosses from the risk in question.

One way to encourage communities todevelop and enforce building codes and land-use management measures is to provide in-surance premium reductions to all policy-holders in the area based on the stringency ofland-use regulations, building code standards,and inspection. The more effective a commu-nity program is in reducing future disasterlosses, the greater the insurance premiumreduction. Such a community rating systemwas created by the Federal Insurance Admin-istration in 1990 as a way to recognize andencourage community flood plain manage-ment activities that exceed the minimum Na-tional Flood Insurance Program standards(18). This model could be applied to otherhazards as well.

Assist disaster-prone developing na-tions. Countries that are highly vulnerableto natural hazards should implement mod-ern approaches to disaster management [pp.6370 in (3)]. Earthquakes and volcaniceruptions threaten most countries aroundthe Pacific Rim and throughout the Medi-terranean, and the earthquake zone contin-ues into the Himalayan region. Tropicalcyclones cause extensive damage in theregions of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indianoceans. As an illustration of the magnitudeof these losses, according to its IDNDRNational Committee, from 1989 through1996 China experienced losses averaging3.9% of its gross national product as aresult of natural disasters. More recently,Hurricane Mitch rendered even greater rel-ative devastation to Nicaragua and Hondu-ras. Small island developing states repeat-edly suffer losses on a similar scale. Manydeveloping countries in the hazard-proneregions have limited resources for mitigat-ing and recovering from the impacts ofnatural disasters and need scientific and

S C I E N C E S C O M P A S S

18 JUNE 1999 VOL 284 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org1946

technical assistance.Scientific and technical assistance to de-

veloping countries, to the extent that it isavailable, is usually provided as equipmentor training. All too often it is not longbefore the equipment sits idle and thetrained personnel move on to other jobs.Another approach to assistance that hasbeen successful in numerous cases, and thatoffers better prospects for building lastingcapabilities in developing countries, is toestablish partnerships between like-mindedorganizations in developing and industrial-ized countries [pp. 6370 in (3)]. For ex-ample, a long-term cooperative endeavorbetween the U.S. Geological Surveys vol-cano hazards program and the PhilippineInstitute of Volcanology and Seismologydeveloped collaborative relationships andexpertise that were marshaled to predict theeruption of Mount Pinatubo, leading toevacuation of tens of thousands of peoplefrom around the volcano and departure ofU.S. aircraft and personnel from Clark AirBase (19). Partnerships between academicinstitutions, government laboratories, andprivate organizations could greatly increasethe capabilities of developing countries tocope with natural hazards, while at thesame time extending American goodwilland providing American experts opportuni-ties to pursue important studies in foreignareas.

It is essential that capabilities for disas-ter management be strengthened in devel-oping countries, not only so the necessaryexpertise is available to implement pro-grams, but also so knowledgeable peopleparticipate in policy discussions that lead toformulation of those programs. Unlesssomeone is able to articulate in high-leveldiscussions the opportunities for reducingdisaster losses that modern disaster man-agement methods offer, there is littlechance that the issues will be appropriatelyframed. It must also be recognized that theinhabitants of hazardous areas in many de-veloping countries are poor, and that theirsettlements often are illegal or self builtwith materials at hand. Building codes andwarning systems are largely irrelevant, andthus special efforts must be made to reducetheir vulnerability.

The United States provides developingcountries with little assistance for natural di-saster mitigation. To illustrate this point, con-sider the Office of Foreign Disaster Assist-ance (OFDA), an office within the U.S.Agency for International Development that isresponsible for providing nonfood, humani-tarian assistance in response to internationalcrises and disasters. Within OFDA, the Pre-vention, Mitigation, Preparedness, and Plan-ning Division (PMPPD) oversees projects de-signed to prevent or reduce the impact of

disasters on people and economic infrastruc-ture of foreign countries, whereas the Disas-ter Response Division deals with response.OFDA spent $155.4 million in fiscal year1997, and 11% of this went to PMPPD. Al-though the OFDA projects are generally ef-fective, and other federal agencies also con-duct some related program activities, the rel-atively small amount of OFDA assistancereflects the rather limited international in-volvement of the United States in the IDNDR.Moreover, at the outset of the Decade, theU.S. representation at the United Nationsplayed a passive role at best, and during thecourse of the Decade the United States hasprovided only minimal support for projects.International leadership, assistance, and co-operation in reducing natural disaster lossesworldwide, however, could provide impor-tant benefits to the United States and supportour foreign policy goals. More disaster-resis-tant communities abroad create Americanjobs by increasing exports and services. Di-saster reduction promotes political stability.Cooperation advances the state of science andtechnology by providing access to data, in-formation, and creative minds. In addition,cooperation facilitates the deployment ofglobal observing systems for environmentalmonitoring.

Finally, in this era of globalization, theinterests of all countries extend worldwide.As noted in the Subcommittee on NaturalDisaster Reduction Strategic Plan (20), be-cause the U.S. has a global reach, it has aglobal vulnerability as well. For example,the Mount Pinatubo eruption caused directlosses to the United States of more than $1billion and triggered a change in U.S. strate-gic presence in the western Pacific with theloss of air and naval bases. A proactive inter-national program by the United States toreduce natural disaster losses is clearly justi-fied for humanitarian purposes and to furtherforeign policy interests.

Several organizations in the U.N. sys-tem plan to continue IDNDR-related activ-ities beyond the Decade, including the Of-fice of the Coordinator for HumanitarianAffairs, the United Nations Educational,Scientific, and Cultural Organization, theWorld Meteorological Organization, theWorld Health Organization, and the UnitedNations Development Program. Several in-ternational programs also include naturaldisaster mitigation elements, such as theUnited Nations Commission for Sustain-able Development, the Convention on De-sertification, the Barbados Plan of Actionfor Sustainable Development of Small Is-land States, and the Framework Conventionon Climate Change. Thus, there will con-tinue to be numerous international venuesfor furthering the goals of natural disasterreduction.

References and Notes1. Reducing the Impacts of Natural Hazards: A Strategy

for a Nation (Office of Science and Technology Policy,Washington, DC, 1992).

2. National Research Council, A Safer Future: Reducingthe Impacts of Natural Disasters (National AcademyPress, Washington, DC, 1991); Confronting NaturalDisasters: An International Decade for Natural HazardReduction (National Academy Press, Washington, DC,1987).

3. iiii , Facing the Challenge: The U.S. NationalReport to the IDNDR World Conference on NaturalDisaster Reduction (National Academy Press, Wash-ington, DC, 1994).

4. H. Kunreuther and R. Roth Sr., Eds., Paying the Price:The Status and Role of Insurance Against NaturalDisasters in the United States ( Joseph Henry Press,Washington, DC, 1998).

5. National Research Council, Practical Lessons from theLoma Prieta Earthquake (National Academy Press,Washington, DC, 1994).

6. iiii , Letter Report from the Board on NaturalDisasters to Members of Congress Concerning the(Proposed) National Mitigation Strategy (NationalAcademy Press, Washington, DC, 1997).

7. National Mitigation Strategy: Partnerships for BuildingSafer Communities (FEMA, Washington, DC, 1995).

8. Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment(FEMA, Washington, DC, 1997).

9. R. Burby et al., Cities Under Water: A ComparativeEvaluation of Ten Cities Efforts to Manage FloodplainLand Use (Institute of Behavioral Science, Universityof Colorado, Boulder, 1988).

10. R. Burby, Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Nat-ural Hazards with Land-Use Planning for SustainableCommunities ( Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC,1998).

11. Seismic Safety of Federal and Federally Assisted orRegulated New Building Construction, Executive Or-der 12699, 55 Fed. Reg. 835 (9 Jan. 1990); SeismicSafety of Existing Federally Owned or Leased Build-ings, Executive Order 12941, 59 Fed. Reg. 62,545 (5Dec. 1994).

12. Coastal Exposure and Community Protection: Hurri-cane Andrews Legacy [Insurance Research Counciland Insurance Institute for Property Loss Reduction,Wheaton, IL (IRC), and Boston (IIPLR), 1995].

13. H. Kunreuther, in Paying the Price: The Status andRole of Insurance Against Natural Disasters in theUnited States, H. Kunreuther and R. Roth Sr., Eds.( Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC, 1998), pp.209228.

14. Incentives and Impediments to Improving the SeismicPerformance of Buildings (Earthquake Engineering Re-search Institute, Oakland, CA, 1998).

15. S. Chang, A. Rose, M. Shinozuka, Infrastructure LifeCycle Cost Analysis: Direct and Indirect User Costs ofNatural Hazards. Proceedings of the U.S.Japan JointSeminar on Civil Infrastructure Systems, Honolulu,HI, 28 to 30 August 1997 (Multidisciplinary Centerfor Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY,1998). Technical Report MCEER-98-0017.

16. D. Mileti, Disasters by Design: A Reassessment ofNatural Hazards in the United States ( Joseph HenryPress, Washington, DC, 1999).

17. National Research Council, Reducing Disaster LossesThrough Better Information (National Academy Press,Washington, DC, 1999).

18. E. Pasterick, in (13), pp. 125154.19. C. G. Newhall and R. S. Punongbayan, Eds., Fire and

Mud: Eruptions and Lahars of Mount Pinatubo, Phil-ippines (Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seis-mology, Quezon City, and University of WashingtonPress, Seattle and London, 1996); in Monitoring andMitigation of Volcano Hazards, R. Scarpa and R. I.Tilling, Eds. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996), pp. 807838.

20. Natural Disaster Reduction, A Plan for the Nation(Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washing-ton, DC, 1996).

21. The material presented here is based on work sup-ported by the NSF, Federal Emergency ManagementAgency, and U.S. Geological Survey.

S C I E N C E S C O M P A S S

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 284 18 JUNE 1999 1947

DOI: 10.1126/science.284.5422.1943, 1943 (1999);284 Science

Board on Natural Disastersby Natural DisastersMitigation Emerges as Major Strategy for Reducing Losses Caused

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.

clicking here.colleagues, clients, or customers by , you can order high-quality copies for yourIf you wish to distribute this article to others

here.following the guidelines can be obtained byPermission to republish or repurpose articles or portions of articles

): August 21, 2015 www.sciencemag.org (this information is current as ofThe following resources related to this article are available online at

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/284/5422/1943.full.htmlversion of this article at:

including high-resolution figures, can be found in the onlineUpdated information and services,

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/284/5422/1943.full.html#related-urls4 articles hosted by HighWire Press; see:cited by This article has been

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/collection/sci_policyScience and Policy

subject collections:This article appears in the following

registered trademark of AAAS. is aScience1999 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; all rights reserved. The title

CopyrightAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published weekly, except the last week in December, by theScience

on A

ugus

t 21,

201

5w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from