Resilience

Industrialization, urbanization, and climate change are all increasing the risk from Natech events in the world. Hazardous materials incidents present a significant threat to life and property, involve high values at risk and political sensitivities, cross jurisdictional boundaries, require numerous kinds and types of resources, entail complex strategies and tactics, may be affected by weather, and are relatively non-routine. They can thus be quite complex in and of themselves, even without the occurrence of natural hazards. Because of the confluence of natural disasters and industrial facilities involving hazardous substances, Natech events may pose additional challenges, including the compromise of response capabilities, multiple incidents occurring simultaneously, poor access, utility damage, and evacuation constraints and limitations. As with all emergencies, a Natech response cannot be improvised. Improving Natech response capabilities requires enhanced preparedness efforts. Risk assessments should consider the impact of natural hazards in industrial facilities using or storing hazardous substances. This kind of analysis should allow planners to determine the specific capabilities and activities to respond to and recover from Natech incidents. Once the required capabilities have been determined, communities will need to determine the best way to build the additional capabilities required given funding limitations. Emergency planning for Natech incidents should not be done in isolation but should be integrated in all-hazards, jurisdiction-wise planning. A hybrid approach, which combines planning based on scenario, function, and capabilities, is recommended. Collaborative planning helps individuals and organizations understand their roles, as well as the roles and contributions of other organizations, which ultimately leads to successful operations. Therefore, the first milestone in the planning process is to form a collaborative team, including facility owners or operators as early as possible in the process. Emergency planners are also advised to consider the potential of science and technology for improving preparedness efforts and response capabilities. Furthermore, exercise practitioners designing natural disaster exercises should consider including Natech events in scenarios to add realism and explore response capabilities. In a Natech emergency, data are frequently incomplete and can even be contradictory, so responders should be as conservative as practicable so that they can protect both themselves and the public. Technical specialists for both hazardous materials and natural hazards should be integrated early in the incident command structure. Phasing the operation to protect resources, by keeping them out of the hazard zone, may be a useful strategy in some weather-related emergencies. Emergency managers should also consider how Natech evacuations may disrupt evacuations stemming from the need to protect people from a natural hazard. And first responders should consider a mix of offensive, defensive, and passive tactics.

Humankind has always lived with natural hazards and their consequences. While the frequency and intensity of geological processes may have remained relatively stable, population growth and infrastructure development in areas susceptible to experiencing natural hazards has increased societal risk and the losses experienced from hazard activity. Furthermore, increases in weather-related (e.g., hurricanes, wildfires) hazards emanating from climate change will increase risk in some countries and result in others having to deal with natural hazard risk for the first time. Faced with growing and enduring risk, disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategies will play increasingly important roles in facilitating societal sustainability. This article discusses how readiness or preparedness makes an important contribution to comprehensive DRR. Readiness is defined here in terms of those factors that facilitate people’s individual and collective capability to anticipate, cope with, adapt to, and recover from hazard consequences. This article first discusses the need to conceptualize readiness as comprising several functional categories (structural, survival/direct action, psychological, community/capacity building, livelihood and community-agency readiness). Next, the article discusses how the nature and extent of people’s readiness is a function of the interaction between the information available and the personal, family, community and societal factors used to interpret information and support readiness decision-making. The health belief model (HBM), protection motivation theory (PMT), person-relative-to-event (PrE) theory, theory of planned behavior (TPB), critical awareness (CA), protective action decision model (PADM), and community engagement theory (CET) are used to introduce variables that inform people’s readiness decision-making. A need to consider readiness as a developmental process is discussed and identifies how the variables introduced in the above theories play different roles at different stages in the development of comprehensive readiness. Because many societies must learn to coexist with several sources of hazard, an “all-hazards” approach is required to facilitate the capacity of societies and their members to be resilient in the face of the various hazard consequences they may have to contend with. This article discusses research into readiness for the consequences that arise from earthquake, volcanic, flood, hurricane, and tornado hazards. Furthermore, because hazards transcend national and cultural divides, a comprehensive conceptualization of readiness must accommodate a cross-cultural perspective. Issues in the cross-cultural testing of theory is discussed, as is the need for further work into the relationship between readiness and culture-specific beliefs and processes.