Written by 18:56 Blog, Smart Cities

Why smart cities need pre-disaster recovery plans

Smart Cities disaster recovery

By Jon Glasco.

In 2023, the deadliest wildfire in the U.S. in more than a century devastated Lahaina, a small town on the island of Maui in Hawaii. It started when a grass fire was ignited after high winds snapped a power line. Although the initial fire was reported as “contained” by firefighters, the flames soon re-emerged. Within twelve hours, the town was destroyed in a catastrophic blaze.

Shortly after the tragedy, the federal government estimated that 4,500 people needed shelter, and the cost to rebuild Lahaina would exceed $5 billion. State and local government officials were not prepared for a disaster of this magnitude—or the complexities of disaster recovery.

Recovery complexity varies by country and city. Regardless of location however, government planners and stakeholders who evaluate disaster scenarios and probable recovery issues prior to disasters enable communities to recover faster and with increased resilience. In this article, we explore recovery challenges and the steps smart cities can take to advance in pre-disaster recovery plans.

Climate risks and vulnerable cities

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, extreme climate-driven weather events and disasters are likely to become more severe and more frequent. To help governments make informed decisions on disaster risks and strategies, the Cross Dependency Initiative (XDI) delivers independent climate risk analyses and releases public datasets.

Based on XDI data, European regions most at risk from climate events face increasing threats from flooding, sea level rise and fire. Milan, Venice, Antwerp, Bologna, Hanover, Munich and Nuremberg are among the most vulnerable cities in Europe.

Consider earthquake risks and we need to add cities in Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia to the list. Data from XDI indicates the most vulnerable U.S. cities are in the states of Florida, California, Texas, Louisiana and New York. Government authorities in the U.S. must prepare for threats from wildfires, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods and extreme heat events.

Infrastructure vulnerability

Restoring and rebuilding infrastructure is one of the most difficult challenges in recovering from a disaster. Power grids, telecommunication networks, dams and levees, and low-income housing are highly vulnerable to climate-driven disasters.

Transportation infrastructure is also at risk in devastating storms, and disaster victims depend on transportation and emergency services during the recovery process. The U.S. Department of Transportation therefore requires municipal governments to “consider strategies focused on reducing the vulnerability of existing transportation infrastructure.”

However, most transportation systems were designed to cope with 20th century weather patterns, rather than 21st century climate events which damage roads, bridges, rail networks and public transit systems. This damage disrupts the flow of equipment, goods and people and hinders efforts to reach the most-damaged areas.

Disasters can overwhelm a city’s supply chain, causing delays and shortages of critical supplies and humanitarian aid. Experts say supply chain management in disasters is filled with uncertainty that requires real-time decisions and tradeoffs among organizational, social equity and environmental issues.

Coordinating recovery efforts requires accurate and timely information on transportation routes, logistics and resource allocation—including data that must be shared across public and private sector boundaries. However, many cities lack collaborative recovery and data-sharing plans that prepare them for transportation and logistics emergencies.

Disaster recovery guidelines and shortfalls in the EU and U.S.

Complexity is unavoidable in a recovery process when multiple entities and volunteers with required skills and resources have no official role and no defined recovery mandate. To prepare cities for disaster recovery projects, national governments offer copious guidelines.

Europe’s Disaster Recovery Framework (DRF), a practice-based tool, provides guidance to assist governments in planning the disaster recovery process. The DRF is designed to help governments create a recovery approach “based on the resilience benefits of building back stronger, faster and more inclusively.” It is expected that rebuilding stronger will reduce wellbeing losses by ensuring that reconstructed infrastructure can withstand extreme events.

In a study published in the International Journal on Disaster Risk Reduction, Deborah Blackman and co-authors state:

A sense of wellbeing implies that disaster recovery processes support and enable people to feel equipped and empowered to lead a life “they value living”. … Disasters effectively break the ability of a community to operate effectively and create a serious challenge to both individual and community wellbeing. In many cases, the recovery efforts themselves may be traumatising for communities, diminishing their sense of wellbeing

If all cities made wellbeing goals an essential part of disaster recovery, experts predict global wellbeing losses in the next 20 years can be reduced by 12%—a gain of about $65 billion per year.

Reconstructing the city without a pre-disaster recovery plan

In the absence of a pre-disaster recovery plan, city leaders are often compelled after a catastrophic event to implement a hasty reconstruction which basically restores a community to its pre-disaster condition with low resilience—which “condemns the community to a potential recurrence of a comparable tragedy.”

Although the DRF discusses a communications strategy for recovery, it does not address the pre-disaster need to make citizens aware of climate threats. Research underscores the importance of maintaining public awareness of the risk of extreme events. A study of floods in Germany’s Ahr Valley in 2021 revealed that prior to extreme rainfall “approximately 80% of households were unaware of their exposure to flooding.”

In the U.S., the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) released a Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for Local Governments. This in-depth document includes a step-by-step discussion of the recovery planning process, partnerships and key activities.

While the federal government provides billions of dollars for disaster recovery efforts, with the majority made available from FEMA, a problem for cities and survivors is that recovery assistance is fragmented across more than 30 agencies. This results in a confusing process for communities, businesses and families in dire need of assistance.

A disaster harms many families and individuals in an affected community, and the impact is especially painful for marginalized and disadvantaged members of society. A study from researchers at the University of Central Florida claims that disaster recovery in the U.S. (including programs and assistance from FEMA) is inequitable—and “socially vulnerable populations, including minorities, poor, elderly, and female-headed households, receive a lower amount of aid.”

More effective and equitable recovery depends on pre-disaster planning

A McKinsey report says local governments may lack the scale and urgency required to support disaster recovery operations. In a chaotic recovery situation, “government leaders are confronted with a magnitude of resources and complexity of tasks they are unprepared to administer.” They overestimate the ease of launching a recovery process and underestimate the time, resources and project management expertise required for a successful recovery. Hence the critical need for smart cities to have pre-disaster recovery plans.

Based on a composite of guidelines from European, U.S., and academic sources, smart city planners and private sector partners should:

  • Appoint a disaster recovery leader and team members with insight on urban infrastructure, social equity and stakeholder issues
  • Design a process for disaster recovery coordination with national and supranational government authorities and NGOs
  • Develop procurement systems (and pre-approved contracts) adapted to recovery situations
  • Develop interactive outreach methods to ensure equitable wellbeing support in all segments of society
  • Engage with local communities through risk awareness campaigns and training programs
  • Exploit digital twin technology and AI tools to simulate recovery scenarios and develop an understanding of the long-term impact of disasters on infrastructure, the economy and vulnerable communities

Europe’s DRF guidelines say that building back for inclusion ensures post-disaster support is available to everyone affected by the disaster. “This emphasizes the importance of providing support to low-income households, which are typically more exposed and more vulnerable.”

According to an association of governments in the San Francisco area, “pre-disaster recovery planning builds resilient communities better able to withstand, respond to and recover from disasters.”

Regrettably, Lahaina in 2024 isn’t showing many signs of recovery and resilience. While debris is still being cleared a year after the disaster, residents face long-term instability while struggling to deal with insurance, housing and employment issues. As reported by NBC News, the fire not only destroyed Lahaina but also disrupted Hawaii’s economy, causing a $1 billion loss in revenue in the state’s tourism sector.

While the costs and complexity of any recovery are unpredictable, smart cities need pre-disaster recovery plans on the basis that preparing for recovery before a disaster strikes might be less costly and more equitable than rebuilding in the midst of chaos.

Photo by Greg Rakozy in Unsplash

(Visited 115 times, 2 visits today)
Tags: , Last modified: 02/10/2024
Close