- Email: [email protected]
Natural hazards: An evolving tradition in applied geography
Applied Geography 31 (2011) 1e4
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Applied Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apgeog
Natural hazards: An evolving tradition in applied geography Burrell E. Montz a, *, Graham A. Tobin b a b
Department of Geography, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA Department of Geography, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, USA
a b s t r a c t Keywords: Natural hazards Physical environment Risk Vulnerability
Geographic research on natural hazards has a long history, starting with a focus on physical processes and moving forward with an increased recognition of the interactions between the physical and human environments. This special issue on natural hazards presents papers that illustrate a variety of areas of applied hazards research, from the physical to the socio-economic, as well as the array of approaches and techniques utilized, from the quantitative to the qualitative. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Historical perspective Geographers have long been concerned with natural hazards, with early research focusing on understanding physical processes (see for example, Goldthwait, 1928), spatial distributions and patterns (see Joerg, 1912), and to some extent, the impacts of events (Lemons, 1942) and mitigation (Reed, 1916). This is in stark contrast to more popular accounts following disasters (see for example, Banks & Read, 1906; Everett, 1913; Halstead, 1900; Tyler, 1906), which were mainly descriptive, rather than analytical, and placed responsibility for catastrophe firmly on nature and not human endeavors. The publication of Gilbert White’s landmark work, Human Adjustment to Floods (White, 1945), led to significant changes in natural hazards research. It was this work in geography that set in motion the new era of hazards research focused specifically on solving societal problems. Thus began the tradition of applying geographic knowledge, techniques, and skills to the complexity of issues associated with natural hazards and disasters, exemplified by the series of studies carried out by White and his students at the University of Chicago (Platt, 1986). This tradition has not been without its critics. Because of the emphasis on solving practical problems, sometimes at specific locations, hazards research in geography has been accused of lacking a sound theoretical foundation or with being overly concerned with case-studies as unique events (Alexander, 1997; Hewitt, 1997). At the same time, however, hazards researchers, including those addressing practical problems, were presenting conceptual models and integrative frameworks that reduced the
* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B.E. Montz), [email protected] (G.A. Tobin). 0143-6228/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.06.005
tension between theory and practice (Cutter, 1993; Kasperson et al., 1988; Mitchell, Devine, & Jagger, 1989; Palm, 1990; Tobin & Montz, 1997). This is part of the evolution of applied hazards research that has included a broadening of the range of factors recognized to contribute to hazardousness as well as the tools and techniques that have been used for analysis. Even a cursory look at the present field of hazards research makes this apparent; hazards are truly inter-disciplinary concerns involving virtually all the social and natural sciences, health interests and professional programs. The thrust is no longer to seek a simple theoretical framework, perhaps based on limited case-studies, but research is now multifaceted encompassing thematic approaches, noticeably components of risk, socio-economic vulnerability, structural vulnerability, and individual or community resilience. Of course, the latest technological advances, through GIS, remote sensing, and spatial analytical techniques, have greatly facilitated this hazards research (Tobin & Montz, 2004). Thus, geographers continue to undertake groundbreaking research of both a basic and applied nature; it is to the applied, however, that we now turn. Understanding the geophysical environment Given the history illustrated above, we have obviously come a long way in understanding the geophysical factors that contribute towards the creation of hazardous environments. It should be stressed though, that the earth-atmosphere system is dynamic, showing considerable local, regional, and global scale changes over time. It is, for instance, abundantly clear that global climate change is occurring, but so too is our understanding of relationships among forces within the physical environment, while appreciation of the impacts on the human environment is also ever evolving. Indeed, geographers have analyzed the spatial and temporal trends of extreme events in the quest to fully comprehend the linkages
2
B.E. Montz, G.A. Tobin / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 1e4
among them (Balling & Goodrich, 2007; Curtis & Gamble, 2008). Take for example, the modification of precipitation patterns, which, as illustrated by Brommer, Cerveny, and Balling (2007), can have significant impacts on local and regional vulnerability. Similarly, research into temporal and spatial changes in land use has been ongoing, and plainly demonstrates significant connections among such variables as deforestation, stream runoff and flooding, urbanization, urban heat absorption and heat waves, suburban expansion, development and wildfire potential, along with many other hazard inducing characteristics. There is, then, substantial evidence illustrating how human actions either intentionally or unintentionally exacerbate (and/or mitigate) extreme geophysical events. The precise linkages, however, need further exploration. For instance it is only through in-depth studies and analysis of stream flow data over time that more subtle relationships might be established, as shown by Lecce and Kotecki’s (2008) study of the combined heavy precipitation associated with Hurricanes Dennis and Floyd that explains the catastrophic flood event in Eastern North Carolina in 1999. Geospatial technologies have greatly enhanced our ability to monitor physical systems, and improvements in models and computing power have facilitated utilization of data in real-time applications. Thus, we can monitor precipitation, stream discharge, and seismic activity, track thunderstorms, tornadoes and hurricanes, and watch for extreme temperature and wind conditions as events are unfolding. These in turn can be linked with various mitigation measures to reduce damages and deaths. As Larsen et al. (in this issue) show, there is tremendous potential for incorporating weather forecasts of wind speed and wind direction into models of rates of spread of wildfires which in turn can improve the estimation of evacuation times. Similarly, Gruntfest (2001) points out that integrated stream gauge and rain gauge networks, use of the internet, and more sophisticated graphical displays have significantly advanced flash flood warning systems. In this way, technology has permitted researchers to develop new ways of approaching hazard problems. Nevertheless, despite these important technological advances, challenges remain. For example, our current means of estimating extreme rainfall by interpolating between points may be missing the mark (see Blumenfeld and Skaggs, in this issue) which has important implications for urban flood management. We have come a long way in understanding characteristics of the geophysical environment; yet we have more to learn. The articles by Blumenfeld and Skaggs (in this issue) and by Larsen et al. (in this issue) illustrate our continuing efforts to incorporate physical dynamics into hazard management. We are also increasingly recognizing relationships between the physical environment and human vulnerability, with consideration of the varying interactions of the two spheres over time and in different places. The work described above emphasizes the linkages between the natural and human environments from a physical perspective. Other geographers approach this from a human geography perspective, as described in the next section. Understanding the social and demographic environment While the geophysical setting describes the physical processes to which a population may be exposed, it is not sufficient to understand just the degree to which people at a location are threatened by that exposure. In this regard, risk is a simple probability statement about the frequency of extreme events and the numbers exposed; however to fully appreciate hazards, dynamic human factors must also be addressed. Social and demographic characteristics of the population at risk combine with the prevailing politicaleeconomic system to determine a community’s
vulnerability. Through hazards research, much of which is geographically based, our conception of vulnerability and the factors that contribute to it have progressed significantly. More than ten years ago, we asked such questions as: “Given that the incidence of events appears to be increasing and the number of deaths rising, is the environment becoming more hazardous or are there other explanations for this disturbing increase? . Can spatial and temporal trends be explained by differences in the incidence of extreme geophysical events or are there human/structural factors that need to be addressed to explain hazard vulnerability?” (Tobin & Montz, 1997). Although prior work had addressed vulnerability as a human induced situation resulting from the availability and distribution of resources as well as public policies that marginalized some groups (Blaikie, Cannon, Davis, & Wisner, 1994, Cutter, 1996), our understanding was still being formulated at this time. Since then, however, much attention has been paid to the definitions and elements that contribute to vulnerability. The paper by Lazarus (in this issue) approaches this topic by focusing on those factors that influence the coping capacities of communities and the individuals in them. In other words, how might communities and individuals in hazardous areas overcome those vulnerabilities inherent to their particular situations? Current hazards research, therefore, often incorporates models that not only identify vulnerable conditions that affect people and locations in the face of extreme natural events, but also consider societal resistance and/or resilience and those factors that influence them (Cutter, Boruff, & Shirley, 2003; Wisner, Blaikie, Cannon, & Davis, 2004). To this end, measures of vulnerability have been developed, again sometimes facilitated by GIS, in order to understand spatial patterns for such activities as emergency management planning and evacuation (Chakraborty, Tobin, & Montz, 2005; Cutter, Mitchell, & Scott, 2000). This kind of research, though, has generated additional questions. The first relates to the relative contributions of the variables used to define vulnerability. Some researchers choose not to weight variables differentially to allow for dissimilar effects (for example, Cutter et al., 2000), while others have explored distinctive weighting schemes designed to reflect variations in importance (Brooks, Adger, & Kelly, 2005; Lazarus, in this issue). There are strong arguments for both approaches. Treating all variables as equal contributors allows for generalization from case study to case study, but ignores potentially differential forces. On the other hand, the context in which vulnerability has developed will vary from place to place, so it is unlikely that any given variable will have exactly the same influence on vulnerability everywhere. The argument is compounded by another difficulty related to the ever-changing nature of vulnerability, due to, among other things, the movement of people and changes in their situations (Chakraborty et al., 2005; Emrich, 2000) and changing climates (Carson & Montz, 2009). Thus, determining appropriate weighting is challenging and clearly illustrates that vulnerability is complex, and certainly more easily conceptualized than measured. As noted above, an important component of vulnerability is the understanding and interpretation of risk. Recognition of the nature and extent of the hazards to which one is exposed influences perceptions of one’s vulnerability, and there are numerous factors affecting this. We know that personal experience with hazards influences perception and consequently human behavior, and that this perception varies from person to person based on cognitive and situational differences. Furthermore, this experience works in complex ways to affect behavior, so that experience may either enhance (see for example, Lindell & Perry, 1992) or exacerbate the situation (for example, Newhall & Punongbayan, 1996). Other factors come into play, therefore complicating our ability to predict how people will response to an event. Baker (in this issue) addresses this concern by evaluating household preparedness for
B.E. Montz, G.A. Tobin / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 1e4
Hurricane Wilma in Florida in 2005. He found a range of variables to be positively associated with higher preparedness, again pointing up the complexity of analyzing perceptions and vulnerability. How risks are presented and communicated also influence perceptions and understandings as shown by Kasperson et al. (1988) and Mileti, Nathe, Gori, Greene, and Lemersal (2004). Information about hazards reaches individuals through the internet in both text and graphical formats, through television, newspapers, and other media outlets, and through directed communications from officials. There has been much research on the way in which media portray hazards, disasters, and vulnerability (Vasterman, Yzermans, & Dirkzwager, 2005; Wakefield & Elliot, 2004; Wilkins, 2000), and the work by Rashid (in this issue) shows that media portrayal of risks, events, and mitigation options are powerful contributors to the shaping of perceptions. Nevertheless, some responsibility for a failure to communicate effectively also lies with hazard managers and academics. The concept of the 100-year floodplain, for example, leads to all sorts of misunderstandings and conflates spatial extent, timing and consequences of flooding (Bell & Tobin, 2007; Gruntfest, Carsell, & Plush, 2002; Smith, 2000). Just as geospatial technologies have been applied to advancing knowledge of geophysical systems, they have also been used in communicating risk to foster human understanding of hazards. There are numerous examples of the use of GIS for interactive mapping on the internet (Hodgson & Cutter, 2001) that allow for identification of locations and areas at risk. Indeed, it has long been recognized how important graphics and GIS are for analyzing risks (Carrara and Guzzetti, 1995; Monmonier, 1994), but analyses directed to testing the effectiveness of visualization in communicating risks are not common. The paper by Bass and Blanchard (in this issue) is an early first step in addressing this gap. Goals of the special issue Natural hazards research in geography has a long history and has evolved to incorporate the complexities of the physical and human environments, and their interactions. Our understanding of the dimensions of hazards continues to be ever changing, and the papers in this special issue present some of the areas in which progress is being made. This collection is not designed to represent the whole range of considerations, approaches, or concerns, nor is it a series of tightly linked papers. Rather, the research presented in this issue illustrates a variety of areas of applied hazards research, from the physical to the socio-economic, as well as the array of approaches and techniques utilized, from the quantitative to the qualitative. In organizing this issue, we sought work that is as diverse as the field with the hope that these articles will stimulate new ideas in our quest to make society safer. References Alexander, D. (1997). The study of natural disasters, 1977e1997: some reflections on a changing field of knowledge. Disasters, 21(4), 284e304. Baker, E. J. Household preparedness for the aftermath of hurricanes in Florida. Applied Geography, in this issue, doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.05.002. Balling, R. C., Jr., & Goodrich, G. B. (2007). Analysis of drought determinants for the Colorado River Basin. Climatic Change, 82(1e2), 179e194. Banks, C., & Read, O. (1906). The complete history of the San Francisco disaster and mount Vesuvius horroredeath and ruin by eruption, earthquake and fire. C.E. Thomas. Bass, W. M., & Blanchard, R. D. Examining geographic visualization as a technique for individual risk assessment. Applied Geography, in this issue, doi:10.1016/j. apgeog.2010.03.011. Bell, H., & Tobin, G. A. (2007). Efficient and effective? The 100-year flood in the communication and perception of flood risk. Environmental Hazards, 7(4), 302e311. Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., & Wisner, B. (1994). At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. London: Routledge.
3
Blumenfeld, K. A., & Skaggs, R. H. (2010). Using a high-density rain gauge network to estimate extreme rainfall frequencies in Minnesota. Applied Geography, in this issue, doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.03.013. Brommer, D., Cerveny, R. S., & Balling, R. C., Jr. (2007). Characteristics of longduration precipitation events across the United States. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(22), L22712. Brooks, N., Adger, W. N., & Kelly, P. M. (2005). The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and implications for adaptation. Global Environmental Change, 15(2), 151e163. Carrara, A., & Guzzetti, F. (Eds.). (1995). Geographical information systems in assessing natural hazards. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Carson, S. E., & Montz, B. E. (2009). Planning for climate change: an analysis of vulnerability in Suffolk county, New York. Environmental Hazards, 8, 133e148. Chakraborty, J., Tobin, G. A., & Montz, B. E. (2005). Population evacuation: assessing spatial variability in geo-physical risk and social vulnerability to natural hazards. Natural Hazards Review, 6(1), 23e33. Curtis, S., & Gamble, D. W. (2008). Regional variations of the Caribbean midsummer drought. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 94(1e2), 25e34. Cutter, S. L. (1996). Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geography, 19(1), 529e539. Cutter, S. L. (1993). Living with risk: The geography of technological hazards. New York: Edward Arnold. Cutter, S., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242e261. Cutter, S. L., Mitchell, J. T., & Scott, M. S. (2000). Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a case study of Georgetown county, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(4), 713e737. Emrich, C. T. (2000). Modeling community risk and vulnerability to multiple natural hazards: Hillsborough county, Florida. Department of Geography Master of Arts thesis. Tampa: University of South Florida. Everett, M. (1913). Tragic story of America’s greatest disaster e Tornado, flood and fire in Ohio, Indiana, Nebraska and Mississippi valley. Chicago: J.S. Ziegler Company. Goldthwait, J. W. (1928). The gathering of floods in the Connecticut River system. Geographical Review, 18(3), 428e445. Gruntfest, E. (2001). Beyond flood detection: alternative applications of real-time data. In E. Gruntfest, & J. Handmer (Eds.), Coping with flash floods (pp. 167e179). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Gruntfest, E., Carsell, K., & Plush, T. (2002). An evaluation of the Boulder Creek local flood warning system. Urban Drainage & Flood Control District, Denver. Colorado Springs: University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Halstead, M. (1900). Galveston e The horrors of a stricken city. Chicago: American Publishers. Hewitt, K. (1997). Regions of risk: A geographical introduction to disasters. Harlow, UK: Longman. Hodgson, M. E., & Cutter, S. L. (2001). Mapping and the spatial analysis of hazardscapes. In S. L. Cutter (Ed.), American hazardscapes: The regionalization of hazards and disasters (pp. 37e60). Washington: Joseph Henry Press. Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., et al. (1988). The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177e187. Joerg, W. L. G. (1912). On the proper map for determining the location of earthquakes. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 2, 49e54. Larsen, J. C., Dennison, P. E., Cova, T. J., & Jones, C. Evaluating dynamic wildfire evacuation trigger buffers using the 2003 Cedar fire. Applied Geography, in this issue, doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.05.003. Lazarus, N. W. Coping capacities and rural livelihoods: challenges to community risk management in Sri Lanka. Applied Geography, in this issue, doi:10.1016/j. apgeog.2010.03.012. Lecce, S. A., & Kotecki, E. S. (2008). The 1999 flood of the century in eastern North Carolina: extraordinary hydro-meteorological event or human-induced catastrophe? Physical Geography, 29, 101e120. Lemons, H. (1942). Hail in American agriculture. Economic Geography, 18(4), 363e378. Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (1992). Behavioral foundations of community emergency planning. Washington: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. Mileti, D., Nathe, S., Gori, P., Greene, M., & Lemersal, E. (2004). Public hazards communication and education: The state of the art. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado at Boulder, Natural Hazards Research and Application Information Center. Mitchell, J. K., Devine, N., & Jagger, K. (1989). A contextual model of natural hazard. The Geographical Review, 79(4), 391e409. Monmonier, M. (1994). Graphic narratives for analyzing environmental risks. In A. MacEachren, & D. Taylor (Eds.), Visualization in modern cartography (pp. 201e214). New York: Elsevier Science. Newhall, C. G., & Punongbayan, R. S. (Eds.). (1996). Fire and mud: Eruption and lahars of mount Pinatubo, Philippines. Quezon City/Seattle, WA: Philippine Institute of Vulcanology and Seismology/University of Washington Press. Palm, R. (1990). Natural hazards: An integrative framework for research and planning. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Platt, R. H. (1986). Floods and man: a geographer’s agenda. In R. W. Kates, & I. Burton (Eds.), Geography, resources and environment. Themes from the work of Gilbert F. White, Vol. II (pp. 28e64). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rashid, H. (2010). Interpreting flood disasters and flood hazard perceptions from newspaper discourse: tale of two floods in the Red River Valley, Manitoba, Canada. Applied Geography, in this issue, doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.03.010. Reed, W. G. (1916). Protection from damage by frost. Geographical Review,1(2),110e122. Smith, D. I. (2000). Floodplain management: problems, issues and opportunities. In D. J. Parker (Ed.), Floods, Vol. I (pp. 254e267). London: Routledge.
4
B.E. Montz, G.A. Tobin / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 1e4
Tobin, G. A., & Montz, B. E. (1997). Natural hazards: Integration and explanation. New York: Guilford Press. Tobin, G. A., & Montz, B. E. (2004). Natural hazards and technology: vulnerability, risk and community response in hazardous environments. In S. D. Brunn, S. L. Cutter, & J. W. Harrington (Eds.), Technoearth: A social history of geography and technology (pp. 547e570). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Tyler, S. (1906). San Francisco’s great disaster e Earthquake, fire and volcano in California and at Vesuvius. Philadelphia: P.W. Ziegler Co. Vasterman, P., Yzermans, C. J., & Dirkzwager, A. J. E. (2005). The role of the media and media hype in the aftermath of disasters. Epidemiologic Reviews, 27(1), 107e114.
Wakefield, S. E. L., & Elliot, S. J. (2004). Constructing the news: the role of local newspapers in environmental risk communication. The Professional Geographer, 55(2), 216e226. White, G. F. (1945). Human adjustment to floods: A geographical approach to the flood problem in the United States. Research Paper No. 29. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wilkins, L. (2000). Searching for symbolic mitigation: media coverage of two floods’. In D. J. Parker (Ed.), Floods, Vol. II (pp. 80e87). London: Routledge. Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2004). At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Applied Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apgeog
Natural hazards: An evolving tradition in applied geography Burrell E. Montz a, *, Graham A. Tobin b a b
Department of Geography, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA Department of Geography, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, USA
a b s t r a c t Keywords: Natural hazards Physical environment Risk Vulnerability
Geographic research on natural hazards has a long history, starting with a focus on physical processes and moving forward with an increased recognition of the interactions between the physical and human environments. This special issue on natural hazards presents papers that illustrate a variety of areas of applied hazards research, from the physical to the socio-economic, as well as the array of approaches and techniques utilized, from the quantitative to the qualitative. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Historical perspective Geographers have long been concerned with natural hazards, with early research focusing on understanding physical processes (see for example, Goldthwait, 1928), spatial distributions and patterns (see Joerg, 1912), and to some extent, the impacts of events (Lemons, 1942) and mitigation (Reed, 1916). This is in stark contrast to more popular accounts following disasters (see for example, Banks & Read, 1906; Everett, 1913; Halstead, 1900; Tyler, 1906), which were mainly descriptive, rather than analytical, and placed responsibility for catastrophe firmly on nature and not human endeavors. The publication of Gilbert White’s landmark work, Human Adjustment to Floods (White, 1945), led to significant changes in natural hazards research. It was this work in geography that set in motion the new era of hazards research focused specifically on solving societal problems. Thus began the tradition of applying geographic knowledge, techniques, and skills to the complexity of issues associated with natural hazards and disasters, exemplified by the series of studies carried out by White and his students at the University of Chicago (Platt, 1986). This tradition has not been without its critics. Because of the emphasis on solving practical problems, sometimes at specific locations, hazards research in geography has been accused of lacking a sound theoretical foundation or with being overly concerned with case-studies as unique events (Alexander, 1997; Hewitt, 1997). At the same time, however, hazards researchers, including those addressing practical problems, were presenting conceptual models and integrative frameworks that reduced the
* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B.E. Montz), [email protected] (G.A. Tobin). 0143-6228/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.06.005
tension between theory and practice (Cutter, 1993; Kasperson et al., 1988; Mitchell, Devine, & Jagger, 1989; Palm, 1990; Tobin & Montz, 1997). This is part of the evolution of applied hazards research that has included a broadening of the range of factors recognized to contribute to hazardousness as well as the tools and techniques that have been used for analysis. Even a cursory look at the present field of hazards research makes this apparent; hazards are truly inter-disciplinary concerns involving virtually all the social and natural sciences, health interests and professional programs. The thrust is no longer to seek a simple theoretical framework, perhaps based on limited case-studies, but research is now multifaceted encompassing thematic approaches, noticeably components of risk, socio-economic vulnerability, structural vulnerability, and individual or community resilience. Of course, the latest technological advances, through GIS, remote sensing, and spatial analytical techniques, have greatly facilitated this hazards research (Tobin & Montz, 2004). Thus, geographers continue to undertake groundbreaking research of both a basic and applied nature; it is to the applied, however, that we now turn. Understanding the geophysical environment Given the history illustrated above, we have obviously come a long way in understanding the geophysical factors that contribute towards the creation of hazardous environments. It should be stressed though, that the earth-atmosphere system is dynamic, showing considerable local, regional, and global scale changes over time. It is, for instance, abundantly clear that global climate change is occurring, but so too is our understanding of relationships among forces within the physical environment, while appreciation of the impacts on the human environment is also ever evolving. Indeed, geographers have analyzed the spatial and temporal trends of extreme events in the quest to fully comprehend the linkages
2
B.E. Montz, G.A. Tobin / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 1e4
among them (Balling & Goodrich, 2007; Curtis & Gamble, 2008). Take for example, the modification of precipitation patterns, which, as illustrated by Brommer, Cerveny, and Balling (2007), can have significant impacts on local and regional vulnerability. Similarly, research into temporal and spatial changes in land use has been ongoing, and plainly demonstrates significant connections among such variables as deforestation, stream runoff and flooding, urbanization, urban heat absorption and heat waves, suburban expansion, development and wildfire potential, along with many other hazard inducing characteristics. There is, then, substantial evidence illustrating how human actions either intentionally or unintentionally exacerbate (and/or mitigate) extreme geophysical events. The precise linkages, however, need further exploration. For instance it is only through in-depth studies and analysis of stream flow data over time that more subtle relationships might be established, as shown by Lecce and Kotecki’s (2008) study of the combined heavy precipitation associated with Hurricanes Dennis and Floyd that explains the catastrophic flood event in Eastern North Carolina in 1999. Geospatial technologies have greatly enhanced our ability to monitor physical systems, and improvements in models and computing power have facilitated utilization of data in real-time applications. Thus, we can monitor precipitation, stream discharge, and seismic activity, track thunderstorms, tornadoes and hurricanes, and watch for extreme temperature and wind conditions as events are unfolding. These in turn can be linked with various mitigation measures to reduce damages and deaths. As Larsen et al. (in this issue) show, there is tremendous potential for incorporating weather forecasts of wind speed and wind direction into models of rates of spread of wildfires which in turn can improve the estimation of evacuation times. Similarly, Gruntfest (2001) points out that integrated stream gauge and rain gauge networks, use of the internet, and more sophisticated graphical displays have significantly advanced flash flood warning systems. In this way, technology has permitted researchers to develop new ways of approaching hazard problems. Nevertheless, despite these important technological advances, challenges remain. For example, our current means of estimating extreme rainfall by interpolating between points may be missing the mark (see Blumenfeld and Skaggs, in this issue) which has important implications for urban flood management. We have come a long way in understanding characteristics of the geophysical environment; yet we have more to learn. The articles by Blumenfeld and Skaggs (in this issue) and by Larsen et al. (in this issue) illustrate our continuing efforts to incorporate physical dynamics into hazard management. We are also increasingly recognizing relationships between the physical environment and human vulnerability, with consideration of the varying interactions of the two spheres over time and in different places. The work described above emphasizes the linkages between the natural and human environments from a physical perspective. Other geographers approach this from a human geography perspective, as described in the next section. Understanding the social and demographic environment While the geophysical setting describes the physical processes to which a population may be exposed, it is not sufficient to understand just the degree to which people at a location are threatened by that exposure. In this regard, risk is a simple probability statement about the frequency of extreme events and the numbers exposed; however to fully appreciate hazards, dynamic human factors must also be addressed. Social and demographic characteristics of the population at risk combine with the prevailing politicaleeconomic system to determine a community’s
vulnerability. Through hazards research, much of which is geographically based, our conception of vulnerability and the factors that contribute to it have progressed significantly. More than ten years ago, we asked such questions as: “Given that the incidence of events appears to be increasing and the number of deaths rising, is the environment becoming more hazardous or are there other explanations for this disturbing increase? . Can spatial and temporal trends be explained by differences in the incidence of extreme geophysical events or are there human/structural factors that need to be addressed to explain hazard vulnerability?” (Tobin & Montz, 1997). Although prior work had addressed vulnerability as a human induced situation resulting from the availability and distribution of resources as well as public policies that marginalized some groups (Blaikie, Cannon, Davis, & Wisner, 1994, Cutter, 1996), our understanding was still being formulated at this time. Since then, however, much attention has been paid to the definitions and elements that contribute to vulnerability. The paper by Lazarus (in this issue) approaches this topic by focusing on those factors that influence the coping capacities of communities and the individuals in them. In other words, how might communities and individuals in hazardous areas overcome those vulnerabilities inherent to their particular situations? Current hazards research, therefore, often incorporates models that not only identify vulnerable conditions that affect people and locations in the face of extreme natural events, but also consider societal resistance and/or resilience and those factors that influence them (Cutter, Boruff, & Shirley, 2003; Wisner, Blaikie, Cannon, & Davis, 2004). To this end, measures of vulnerability have been developed, again sometimes facilitated by GIS, in order to understand spatial patterns for such activities as emergency management planning and evacuation (Chakraborty, Tobin, & Montz, 2005; Cutter, Mitchell, & Scott, 2000). This kind of research, though, has generated additional questions. The first relates to the relative contributions of the variables used to define vulnerability. Some researchers choose not to weight variables differentially to allow for dissimilar effects (for example, Cutter et al., 2000), while others have explored distinctive weighting schemes designed to reflect variations in importance (Brooks, Adger, & Kelly, 2005; Lazarus, in this issue). There are strong arguments for both approaches. Treating all variables as equal contributors allows for generalization from case study to case study, but ignores potentially differential forces. On the other hand, the context in which vulnerability has developed will vary from place to place, so it is unlikely that any given variable will have exactly the same influence on vulnerability everywhere. The argument is compounded by another difficulty related to the ever-changing nature of vulnerability, due to, among other things, the movement of people and changes in their situations (Chakraborty et al., 2005; Emrich, 2000) and changing climates (Carson & Montz, 2009). Thus, determining appropriate weighting is challenging and clearly illustrates that vulnerability is complex, and certainly more easily conceptualized than measured. As noted above, an important component of vulnerability is the understanding and interpretation of risk. Recognition of the nature and extent of the hazards to which one is exposed influences perceptions of one’s vulnerability, and there are numerous factors affecting this. We know that personal experience with hazards influences perception and consequently human behavior, and that this perception varies from person to person based on cognitive and situational differences. Furthermore, this experience works in complex ways to affect behavior, so that experience may either enhance (see for example, Lindell & Perry, 1992) or exacerbate the situation (for example, Newhall & Punongbayan, 1996). Other factors come into play, therefore complicating our ability to predict how people will response to an event. Baker (in this issue) addresses this concern by evaluating household preparedness for
B.E. Montz, G.A. Tobin / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 1e4
Hurricane Wilma in Florida in 2005. He found a range of variables to be positively associated with higher preparedness, again pointing up the complexity of analyzing perceptions and vulnerability. How risks are presented and communicated also influence perceptions and understandings as shown by Kasperson et al. (1988) and Mileti, Nathe, Gori, Greene, and Lemersal (2004). Information about hazards reaches individuals through the internet in both text and graphical formats, through television, newspapers, and other media outlets, and through directed communications from officials. There has been much research on the way in which media portray hazards, disasters, and vulnerability (Vasterman, Yzermans, & Dirkzwager, 2005; Wakefield & Elliot, 2004; Wilkins, 2000), and the work by Rashid (in this issue) shows that media portrayal of risks, events, and mitigation options are powerful contributors to the shaping of perceptions. Nevertheless, some responsibility for a failure to communicate effectively also lies with hazard managers and academics. The concept of the 100-year floodplain, for example, leads to all sorts of misunderstandings and conflates spatial extent, timing and consequences of flooding (Bell & Tobin, 2007; Gruntfest, Carsell, & Plush, 2002; Smith, 2000). Just as geospatial technologies have been applied to advancing knowledge of geophysical systems, they have also been used in communicating risk to foster human understanding of hazards. There are numerous examples of the use of GIS for interactive mapping on the internet (Hodgson & Cutter, 2001) that allow for identification of locations and areas at risk. Indeed, it has long been recognized how important graphics and GIS are for analyzing risks (Carrara and Guzzetti, 1995; Monmonier, 1994), but analyses directed to testing the effectiveness of visualization in communicating risks are not common. The paper by Bass and Blanchard (in this issue) is an early first step in addressing this gap. Goals of the special issue Natural hazards research in geography has a long history and has evolved to incorporate the complexities of the physical and human environments, and their interactions. Our understanding of the dimensions of hazards continues to be ever changing, and the papers in this special issue present some of the areas in which progress is being made. This collection is not designed to represent the whole range of considerations, approaches, or concerns, nor is it a series of tightly linked papers. Rather, the research presented in this issue illustrates a variety of areas of applied hazards research, from the physical to the socio-economic, as well as the array of approaches and techniques utilized, from the quantitative to the qualitative. In organizing this issue, we sought work that is as diverse as the field with the hope that these articles will stimulate new ideas in our quest to make society safer. References Alexander, D. (1997). The study of natural disasters, 1977e1997: some reflections on a changing field of knowledge. Disasters, 21(4), 284e304. Baker, E. J. Household preparedness for the aftermath of hurricanes in Florida. Applied Geography, in this issue, doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.05.002. Balling, R. C., Jr., & Goodrich, G. B. (2007). Analysis of drought determinants for the Colorado River Basin. Climatic Change, 82(1e2), 179e194. Banks, C., & Read, O. (1906). The complete history of the San Francisco disaster and mount Vesuvius horroredeath and ruin by eruption, earthquake and fire. C.E. Thomas. Bass, W. M., & Blanchard, R. D. Examining geographic visualization as a technique for individual risk assessment. Applied Geography, in this issue, doi:10.1016/j. apgeog.2010.03.011. Bell, H., & Tobin, G. A. (2007). Efficient and effective? The 100-year flood in the communication and perception of flood risk. Environmental Hazards, 7(4), 302e311. Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., & Wisner, B. (1994). At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. London: Routledge.
3
Blumenfeld, K. A., & Skaggs, R. H. (2010). Using a high-density rain gauge network to estimate extreme rainfall frequencies in Minnesota. Applied Geography, in this issue, doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.03.013. Brommer, D., Cerveny, R. S., & Balling, R. C., Jr. (2007). Characteristics of longduration precipitation events across the United States. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(22), L22712. Brooks, N., Adger, W. N., & Kelly, P. M. (2005). The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and implications for adaptation. Global Environmental Change, 15(2), 151e163. Carrara, A., & Guzzetti, F. (Eds.). (1995). Geographical information systems in assessing natural hazards. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Carson, S. E., & Montz, B. E. (2009). Planning for climate change: an analysis of vulnerability in Suffolk county, New York. Environmental Hazards, 8, 133e148. Chakraborty, J., Tobin, G. A., & Montz, B. E. (2005). Population evacuation: assessing spatial variability in geo-physical risk and social vulnerability to natural hazards. Natural Hazards Review, 6(1), 23e33. Curtis, S., & Gamble, D. W. (2008). Regional variations of the Caribbean midsummer drought. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 94(1e2), 25e34. Cutter, S. L. (1996). Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geography, 19(1), 529e539. Cutter, S. L. (1993). Living with risk: The geography of technological hazards. New York: Edward Arnold. Cutter, S., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242e261. Cutter, S. L., Mitchell, J. T., & Scott, M. S. (2000). Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a case study of Georgetown county, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(4), 713e737. Emrich, C. T. (2000). Modeling community risk and vulnerability to multiple natural hazards: Hillsborough county, Florida. Department of Geography Master of Arts thesis. Tampa: University of South Florida. Everett, M. (1913). Tragic story of America’s greatest disaster e Tornado, flood and fire in Ohio, Indiana, Nebraska and Mississippi valley. Chicago: J.S. Ziegler Company. Goldthwait, J. W. (1928). The gathering of floods in the Connecticut River system. Geographical Review, 18(3), 428e445. Gruntfest, E. (2001). Beyond flood detection: alternative applications of real-time data. In E. Gruntfest, & J. Handmer (Eds.), Coping with flash floods (pp. 167e179). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Gruntfest, E., Carsell, K., & Plush, T. (2002). An evaluation of the Boulder Creek local flood warning system. Urban Drainage & Flood Control District, Denver. Colorado Springs: University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Halstead, M. (1900). Galveston e The horrors of a stricken city. Chicago: American Publishers. Hewitt, K. (1997). Regions of risk: A geographical introduction to disasters. Harlow, UK: Longman. Hodgson, M. E., & Cutter, S. L. (2001). Mapping and the spatial analysis of hazardscapes. In S. L. Cutter (Ed.), American hazardscapes: The regionalization of hazards and disasters (pp. 37e60). Washington: Joseph Henry Press. Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., et al. (1988). The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177e187. Joerg, W. L. G. (1912). On the proper map for determining the location of earthquakes. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 2, 49e54. Larsen, J. C., Dennison, P. E., Cova, T. J., & Jones, C. Evaluating dynamic wildfire evacuation trigger buffers using the 2003 Cedar fire. Applied Geography, in this issue, doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.05.003. Lazarus, N. W. Coping capacities and rural livelihoods: challenges to community risk management in Sri Lanka. Applied Geography, in this issue, doi:10.1016/j. apgeog.2010.03.012. Lecce, S. A., & Kotecki, E. S. (2008). The 1999 flood of the century in eastern North Carolina: extraordinary hydro-meteorological event or human-induced catastrophe? Physical Geography, 29, 101e120. Lemons, H. (1942). Hail in American agriculture. Economic Geography, 18(4), 363e378. Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (1992). Behavioral foundations of community emergency planning. Washington: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. Mileti, D., Nathe, S., Gori, P., Greene, M., & Lemersal, E. (2004). Public hazards communication and education: The state of the art. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado at Boulder, Natural Hazards Research and Application Information Center. Mitchell, J. K., Devine, N., & Jagger, K. (1989). A contextual model of natural hazard. The Geographical Review, 79(4), 391e409. Monmonier, M. (1994). Graphic narratives for analyzing environmental risks. In A. MacEachren, & D. Taylor (Eds.), Visualization in modern cartography (pp. 201e214). New York: Elsevier Science. Newhall, C. G., & Punongbayan, R. S. (Eds.). (1996). Fire and mud: Eruption and lahars of mount Pinatubo, Philippines. Quezon City/Seattle, WA: Philippine Institute of Vulcanology and Seismology/University of Washington Press. Palm, R. (1990). Natural hazards: An integrative framework for research and planning. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Platt, R. H. (1986). Floods and man: a geographer’s agenda. In R. W. Kates, & I. Burton (Eds.), Geography, resources and environment. Themes from the work of Gilbert F. White, Vol. II (pp. 28e64). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rashid, H. (2010). Interpreting flood disasters and flood hazard perceptions from newspaper discourse: tale of two floods in the Red River Valley, Manitoba, Canada. Applied Geography, in this issue, doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.03.010. Reed, W. G. (1916). Protection from damage by frost. Geographical Review,1(2),110e122. Smith, D. I. (2000). Floodplain management: problems, issues and opportunities. In D. J. Parker (Ed.), Floods, Vol. I (pp. 254e267). London: Routledge.
4
B.E. Montz, G.A. Tobin / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 1e4
Tobin, G. A., & Montz, B. E. (1997). Natural hazards: Integration and explanation. New York: Guilford Press. Tobin, G. A., & Montz, B. E. (2004). Natural hazards and technology: vulnerability, risk and community response in hazardous environments. In S. D. Brunn, S. L. Cutter, & J. W. Harrington (Eds.), Technoearth: A social history of geography and technology (pp. 547e570). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Tyler, S. (1906). San Francisco’s great disaster e Earthquake, fire and volcano in California and at Vesuvius. Philadelphia: P.W. Ziegler Co. Vasterman, P., Yzermans, C. J., & Dirkzwager, A. J. E. (2005). The role of the media and media hype in the aftermath of disasters. Epidemiologic Reviews, 27(1), 107e114.
Wakefield, S. E. L., & Elliot, S. J. (2004). Constructing the news: the role of local newspapers in environmental risk communication. The Professional Geographer, 55(2), 216e226. White, G. F. (1945). Human adjustment to floods: A geographical approach to the flood problem in the United States. Research Paper No. 29. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wilkins, L. (2000). Searching for symbolic mitigation: media coverage of two floods’. In D. J. Parker (Ed.), Floods, Vol. II (pp. 80e87). London: Routledge. Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2004). At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.