06/27/08 Session No. 1
1
Course Title: Theory, Principles and Fundamentals of Hazards, Disasters and U.S. Emergency Management Session Title: Course Introduction and Overview Time: 3 Hours Objectives: 1.1 1.2 Introduction of instructor, including relevant background and interests. Have students introduce themselves and indicate their reasons for taking this course and their expectations. Hand out course syllabus and go over course objectives, content, readings. Discuss course format and student requirements and responsibilities, such as attendance, participation, and papers (if required). Deliver lecture previewing some of the more pertinent points to be made during the course. Preview Session 2, ―What are Hazards and Disasters‖ by asking students to write a definition of disaster in class and going over some of these definitions briefly without attempting to reach conclusions or consensus.
1.3 1.4
1.5
1.6
Scope: The professor introduces him/herself to the class, providing some personal context— relevant experience, research interests, how one became involved in this subject area. This is also an opportunity to acquire information concerning student interests and expectations. In that there is no single textbook to support this course, the instructor needs to go over the reading assignments, making it clear to the students which books and article packets are to be purchased (if any) and which have been put on reserve for their use. The professor should indicate what this course is about and what it is not about. For example, it is not about the day-to-day operations of an office of emergency management. Neither is this course a how-to course concerned with the functions of an office of emergency management – such as how to do a risk assessment or how to draft a long-term mitigation strategy or an emergency operations plan. Rather, this course is concerned with the underlying principles and fundamentals of emergency management. This course argues that these are better understood within the context of an understanding of hazards and disasters theory as well as an appreciation of the broad scope, nature, and complexity of hazards facing the United States.
06/27/08 Recommended Instructor Readings: Portions of the following books have been recommended for student reading assignments during this course. It is recommended that the instructor become familiar with each in its entirety Cutter, Susan L. (ed.). 2001. American Hazardscapes: The Regionalization of Hazards & Disasters. Wash DC: Joseph Henry Press. Mileti, Dennis. 1999. Disasters By Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. Washington, DC, Joseph Henry Press. Tobin, Graham A. and Burrell E. Montz. 1997. Natural Hazards: Explanation and Integration. NY and London, Guilford Press.
2
General Requirements: Power Point ―slides‖ have been prepared to support this and future sessions. The course is not dependent upon the utilization of these visual aids. They are provided as a tool and aid that the instructor is free to use or not – as Power Points or overhead transparencies. Students should be provided with a copy of the course syllabus as well as any other handouts prepared for this session or for general interest.
Objective 1.1--Introduction of instructor, including relevant background and interests. Briefly explain to the students how you became interested in hazards, disasters, and what to do about them – referred to as emergency management in the governmental public sector. How is it that the instructor has acquired qualifications to teach this course?
If you have hazard, disaster or emergency management experience, this is an opportunity to provide such relevant background for the benefit of the students. Have you or a family member or friend experienced a disaster first-hand? If not experience, then relevant research interests, writings, presentations, volunteer work or other community involvement may be pertinent. This may be the appropriate time to note your office location, office hours and policy regarding student contact with you via telephone, fax, email.
06/27/08 Objective 1.2 -- Student Introductions.
3
It is suggested that the instructor allow the students to introduce themselves. The instructor may wish to make notes on the blackboard. Of course, if the class size is very large, then this may be unwieldy or too time consuming. What are their relevant backgrounds and experiences – including disaster experience?
Why they are taking the course? What are their expectations?
Objective 1.3 – Hand out course syllabus, go over course objectives, content, readings. Hand out the syllabus, go over it and ask if there are any questions. Provided below are a few background notes relating to placing emergency management principles and fundamentals within a context of hazards facing the United States historically and in the future. Additional context that will be noted during the course will relate to social and political factors that bear a great deal on the formation of emergency management principles and fundamentals. This course will also deal with the larger picture of the need to engage in disaster reduction – the true aim of emergency management in the future.
Throughout the history of the United States, disasters and catastrophic events have destroyed and devastated lives, destroyed and damaged property, and put large segments of our population at risk. Earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, floods, drought, blizzards, fires, hazardous materials spills, hurricanes, and now terrorism, are but a few of the hazards—natural, technological, and social—that threaten communities and challenge those who are responsible for the lives, safety, and well-being of others. The U.S. is becoming more hazardous as well as more vulnerable to those hazards. In the words of the Board on Natural Disasters of the National Research Council: ―Losses of life and property from natural disasters in the United States—and throughout the world—have been enormous and the potential for substantially greater future losses looms. It is clearly in the public interest to reduce these impacts and to encourage the development of communities that are resilient to disasters.‖ (National Research Council, 1998, 1.)
06/27/08 While the NRC Board was addressing itself just to the natural hazards dimension, it is sadly true in the technological and social dimensions as well. There is no magic pill that will make these hazards disappear.
4
There are, however, a variety of actions that can be taken to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. In the public sector in the U.S. these are referred to as emergency management, which will be the subject of discussion of much of this course.
General Course Objectives: At the conclusion of this course, the students should be able to: Appreciate the scientific, social, political, organizational, economic and human contexts of terms such as ―hazards‖ and ―disasters.‖ Know and discuss the range of hazards and disasters within the United States. Explain the increasing risk and vulnerability of the U.S. population to hazards as well as some of the more important factors bearing on this increase. Discuss the evolving nature of U.S. emergency management. Understand the principles and fundamentals of U.S. emergency management. Appreciate the range of perspectives (e.g., technocratic, vulnerability) that one can take in looking at hazards, disasters, and emergency management. Describe the major tenets of building disaster resistant and resilient communities. Appreciate the role of the Federal, State, and local governments in emergency management within the United States. Know and discuss the role that volunteer organizations and professional associations play in the U.S. emergency management system. Understand the nature of the more salient challenges, trends and issues confronting emergency management at the beginning of the 21st Century. Be able to articulate the reasons emergency management needs to continue to change from a reactive disaster response posture and mind set to a proactive disaster reduction posture and mind set.
06/27/08 Demonstrate an awareness of a broad range of prescriptions that have been offered pointing the way ahead if the U.S. and the world are to make progress in disaster reduction.
5
Student Skills and Abilities The course objectives noted above generally address knowledge competencies. It is just as important for the professor to try, during this course, to seek to aid in the development and/or enhancement of student skills and abilities in such areas as: Enhanced analytic thinking. Ability to synthesize material Increased problem solving skills Ability to communicate orally and in writing Capacity to be a team player.
Objective 1.4 – Discuss Student Requirements and Responsibilities What are your requirements for the students in such areas as: Attendance Participation Papers Projects Working Groups
The instructor might want to discuss grading at this point. Objective 1.5 – Course Overview Presentation1 In 1999 the National Science Foundation released a five-year study of hazards, disasters and our response to these phenomena in the United States, entitled Disasters By Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States, written by Dennis Mileti of the University of Colorado at Boulder. Over one hundred experts worked on this study, looking at how the U.S. has related to hazards in the past, what the present looks like, and how the future could look. It included a number of observations, findings, and recommendations that are relevant to emergency management. Among them:
Material derived in part from review of Disasters By Design (―Disasters by Design – A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States‖) by the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI), in PERIScope, Vol. 2, No. 2, Summer 1999, pp. 3-5.
1
06/27/08
6
One of the primary roles of emergency management should be the development of a comprehensive program to enhance a community’s ability to reduce the costs of disaster and to overcome an extreme event without significant outside assistance. Thus, disaster resilient communities are those that can tolerate and overcome damage, diminished productivity, and reduced quality of life from an extreme event without significant outside assistance. (Visual Aid 1) Many of the accepted methods for coping with hazards have been based on the idea that people can use technology to control nature to make themselves safe. This viewpoint is challenged.
Mileti provides six guidelines for improving our ability to deal with hazards. (1) Adopt a global systems perspective. (2) Accept responsibility for hazards and disasters. (3) Challenge Traditional Planning Model (4) Reject short-term thinking. (5) Account for social forces. (6) Embrace sustainable development.
(Visual Aid 2)
Elaboration: (1) Adopt a Global Systems Perspective. (Visual Aid 3)
Many disaster losses, rather than stemming from unexpected events, are the predictable result of interactions among three major systems: The physical environment, which includes hazardous events. The human system (i.e., the social and demographic characteristics of communities that experience hazards). Its built infrastructure—the buildings, roads, bridges, and other components of the constructed environment.
06/27/08
7
(2) Accept Responsibility for Hazards and Disasters.
(Visual Aid 4)
Human beings, not nature, are the cause of many disaster losses. All other disaster losses are the result of the interaction between the physical environment and the human system. This stems from choices about where and how human development proceeds. There is no final solution to natural hazards, since technology cannot make the world safe from all the forces of nature and man.
(3) Challenge Traditional Planning Model.
(Visual Aid 5)
Most strategies for managing hazards have followed a traditional planning model: Study the problem, implement one solution, and move on to the next problem – some call this managerialism. But, events during the past quarter-century have shown that natural and technological hazards are not problems that can be solved in isolation. Instead, they are symptoms of broader and more basic problems – losses from hazards, and the fact that the nation cannot seem to reduce them, result from shortsighted and narrow conceptions of the human relationship to the natural environment. Human adaptation to hazards must become as dynamic as the problems presented by the hazards themselves.
(4) Reject Short-Term Thinking.
(Visual Aid 6)
Response to hazards, as frequently conceived, is too short-sighted. In general, people have a cultural and economic predisposition to think primarily in the short-term—including emergency managers. Building disaster resilient communities requires a longer-term view that takes into account the overall effect of mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery efforts on this and future generations. Emergency managers must begin to move significantly beyond casting their work primarily in terms of disaster response planning and operations.
06/27/08
8
(5) Account for Social Forces.
(Visual Aid 7)
Social forces are now known to be much more powerful than disaster specialists previously thought. Thus a better understanding of physical systems and improved technology, while necessary, are not sufficient. Emergency management must be recognized as residing in a context of social, cultural, political, and economic environments that shape its effectiveness. To effectively address natural hazards, prevention and mitigation (or disaster reduction) must become basic social values.
(6) Embrace Sustainable Development.
(Visual Aid 8)
Disasters are more likely where unsustainable development occurs. The converse is also true: Disasters hinder movement toward sustainability because, for example, they degrade the environment and undercut the quality of life. Building a disaster resilient community means strengthening a community‘s social, economic, and environmental resiliency, and vice versa. To achieve sustainability, communities must take responsibility for choosing where and how development proceeds. Toward that end, each locality evaluates its environmental resources and hazards, chooses future losses that it is willing to bear, and ensures that development and other community actions and policies adhere to those goals.
Sustainable Development Objectives
(Visual Aid 9)
Six objectives must simultaneously be reached to deal with hazards in a sustainable way and stop the national trend toward increasing catastrophic losses from disasters. Emergency managers need to embrace these objectives: 1. Maintain and enhance environmental quality. 2. Maintain and enhance quality of life. 3. Foster local resiliency and responsibility.
06/27/08
9
4. Recognize that vibrant local economies are essential. 5. Ensure inter and intragovernmental equity. 6. Adopt local consensus building. Hazards, Disasters, and Emergency Management in the Future: As the overview of Disasters by Design makes evident, the United States needs to take a new approach to hazards, disasters and emergency management. Below, twelve specific points are presented which illustrate that need and suggest how emergency management must evolve to address today‘s requirement for a new national approach – one which focuses on disaster reduction. While there are many positive and progressive developments in emergency management today (which will be discussed during this course), these points focus more on adverse trends and areas in that the case for expedited improvement and change needs to be made. Note: You might want to present the first six points as trends and before proceeding further, ask students for opinions on how these trends can be countered. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Disaster losses are enormous. The United States is becoming more vulnerable. Disaster losses have been going up. Losses are projected to become even worse. Disasters impact people differentially. Past and current practices are not effective enough. Disasters don’t kill people—people kill people. The failure is largely governmental. This can be reduced to an administrative and political problem.
10. We must create a culture of disaster prevention. 11. Emergency management needs to continue to evolve. 12. Education is key.
06/27/08 10 Point 1 Elaboration: Disaster Losses Are Enormous (Visual Aid 10)
Dennis Mileti in Disasters by Design argues that the United States experienced $500 billion in disaster losses during the last decade. That is an average of $50 billion annually—about $1 billion per week. According to some, this is a conservative estimate. Little inclusion of indirect losses. ―if crops are included and losses standardized to 1994 dollars, the figure jumps to $1 trillion.‖2
On average, 1,500 people lose their lives due to natural hazards per year in the U.S. 3
Point 2: The U.S. Is Becoming More Vulnerable
(Visual Aid 11)
―No part of the country is free from natural hazards, whether they be hurricanes in North Carolina, earthquakes in California, flooding in Missouri, tornadoes in Oklahoma, wildfires in Montana, landslides in Alaska, or ice storms in New York. As the . . . [FEMA] map of Presidential disaster declarations shows, all states are vulnerable.‖ 4 Note: The map, Presidential Disaster Declarations, January 1, 1965 to November 3, 2000, is available at www.bakerprojects.com/fema/Maps/CONUS.pdf. Increase in vulnerability driven primarily by social, rather than natural factors. A growing population, particularly in higher risk coastal areas and large cities. More property subject to damage. Lifestyle and demographic changes subjecting lives and property to greater exposure.5
Raymond J. Burby, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (ed.) ―Session 1 Overview.‖ pp. 1–3 in Building Disaster Resilient Communities (FEMA Higher Education Project Instructor Guide). 2002. 3 Kenneth E. Kunkel, Roger A. Pielke Jr., and Stanley A. Chagnon. ―Temporal Fluctuations in Weather and Climate Extremes That Cause Economic and Human Health Impacts: A Review.‖ Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (Vol. 8, No. 6, June 1999), p. 1080. Drawn from www .dir.ucar.edu/esig/socasp/weather1. 4 Congressional Natural Hazards Caucus Workgroup, 2001 (Jan 22), p. 3. 5 Kunkel, et al. 1999, p. 1077.
2
06/27/08 11
Just as important though is the fact that we are underutilizing lessons learned. We have, through much sad experience here and abroad, the knowledge and ―know-how‖ to flatten the curve of escalating disaster losses. Rather than fuller applying this knowledge though, we tend to build where we want and how we want – becoming ever more vulnerable in the process.
Point 3: Disaster Losses Have Been Going Up
(Visual Aid 12)
―Each decade, property damage has doubled or tripled in terms of constant dollars.‖ (Congressional Natural Hazards Caucus, 2001)
As Dennis Mileti, the author of Disasters by Design, has put it: ―Natural disaster costs in this country are still sky-rocketing—and nobody cares.‖6
This trend of rising disaster losses is apparent not only in the United States, but also worldwide.
Point 4: Disaster Losses Projected to Become Even Worse
(Visual Aid 13)
Eric Tolbert, at the time, Director of the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management has noted: ―In our lifetime, probably within two decades, Americans will see one or two catastrophic events that will be beyond our comprehension.‖7
The National Science and Technology Council foresees adverse national trends which, if unaddressed, could give rise to unparalleled losses. ―Losses of $100 billion from individual events, and perhaps unprecedented loss of life, loom in our future.‖8
These national trends are the subject of Session 4.
6 7
Mileti, 2001. Eric Tolbert. 2001. ―U.S. to Face One or Two Catastrophic Events ‗Beyond Comprehension‘.‖ Remarks from presentation during mid-year conference of the National Emergency Management Association, 10–14 February 2001, Crystal City, Virginia; quoted in Emergency Preparedness News, Vol. 25, No. 5, February 27, 2001, p. 42. 8 Ibid.
06/27/08 12 Point 5: Disasters Impact People Differentially (Visual Aid 14)
Some are more vulnerable, more at risk, and less resilient than others. The social sciences offer more of an explanation of vulnerability than do the natural sciences. To cite John Twigg of the Benfield-Greg Hazard Research Center, University College in London: ―To understand what makes people vulnerable, we have to move away from the hazard itself to look at a much wider, and a much more diverse, set of influences: the whole range of economic, social, cultural, institutional, political, and even psychological factors that shape people‘s lives and create the environment that they live in. . . vulnerability is socially constructed.‖9
Point 6: Past and Current Practices Are Not Effective Enough
(Visual Aid 15)
Obviously, based on the steadily escalating losses that are attributable to disasters, what we are doing now is not effective enough – if they were, losses would not be spiraling ever upwards. Thus, if we hope to curtail the upward trend in losses, risks, vulnerabilities, and disproportional effects, the conclusion is obvious that we must change current policies and practices.
Point 7: Disasters Don’t Kill People—People Kill People
(Visual Aid 16)
Dennis Mileti has stated: ―What is wrong in this country in the area of natural hazards is that we do not own up to our problems and responsibilities—we blame nature or God.‖10 A FEMA director stated that the large disaster losses experienced during the decade of the 1990‘s ―has been the result of a lethal combination of fierce nature and human decisions.‖11 From the FEMA website, ―You can’t prevent the weather but you can prevent the damage.‖12
9
John Twigg, 2001, p.2. Mileti, 2001. 11 James Lee Witt. 2001 (April 3). Keynote Presentation, Session III, National Symposium on Mitigating Severe Weather Impact—Design for Disaster Reduction, Tulsa Convention Center, Tulsa OK, March 31 to April 4, 2001. 12 www.fema.gov/impact. 1 May 2001
10
06/27/08 13 Point 8: Failure Is Largely Governmental Public safety is a governmental responsibility. ―The police power, delegated to local governments by the state, authorizes local government actions that protect the public health, safety and general welfare. While there are admittedly conflicting pressures concerning land use, among other measures that could reduce disaster losses, Schwab, et al., assert that ―We have created unsustainable, non-resilient communities by directly placing people and property in harm’s way.‖13 And, ―The. . . lack of state and local government commitment to and capacity for mitigation is a fundamental impediment to loss reduction.‖14 (Visual Aid 17)
Point 9: It Is Primarily A Political Problem While there are many players, the key is top political commitment. Robert Hamilton of the National Academy of Sciences asserts that:
(Visual Aid 18)
―Unless the most senior government officials commit to implementing mitigation practices, as an investment in protecting assets and conserving resources, disaster reduction will be of low priority. History shows that without such leadership, short-term crises will overshadow the long-term considerations and absorb the resources needed for effective loss-reduction measures.‖15 Point 10: We Must Create a Culture of Disaster Prevention and Reduction ………………………………………………………………………………...(Visual Aid 19) A paradigm shift is needed. The time is now: ―We can no longer afford, financially or socially, to rely only on the expectations of emergency relief when disaster strikes. Much greater attention must be paid to preventive strategies aimed at saving lives and protecting resources and assets before they are lost.‖16
Anna K. Schwab, David J. Brower, Timothy Beatley. ―Sustainable Development, Resilient Communities and Smart Growth,‖ Session 3 in Building Disaster Resilient Communities, FEMA Higher Education Project Course. 14 Congressional Natural Hazards Caucus Workgroup. 2001 (Jan. 22). ―Discussion Paper for the Congressional Natural Hazards Caucus,‖ p. 7. At: www.agriweb.org/workgroup. 15 Hamilton (National Academy of Sciences). 1999, pp. 305–306. 16 Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, in Ingleton 1999, ―Statement By the Secretary-General.
13
06/27/08 14 Point 11: Emergency Management Needs to Continue to Evolve (Visual Aid 20)
John Salter of the Australian Disaster Emergency Management College sees the need to move to a risk-based approach to emergency management. ―We cannot do today’s job with yesterday’s methods and be in business tomorrow.‖17
Neil Britton of New Zealand writes that, ―Disaster management needs to undergo fundamental reform to meet the needs and expectations of society in the next millennium.‖18 Also, according to Britton, ―. . . change in the emergency management sector is both inevitable and necessary.‖ And, ―. . . higher and more diversified skill levels. . . ― are needed.‖19 ―Disaster management needs to be undertaken within, and in support of, the wider social, cultural, environmental, and economic fabric of communities.‖20
―In response to the changing imperatives, the field of emergency management is finding new tools to manage hazards and to deal with disasters; it is professionalizing and promises to become one of the most challenging occupations in government.‖21
. Point 12: Education Is Key
(Visual Aid 21)
The way to accomplish much of the improvement needed is through education: ―. . . although knowledge does not guarantee power over natural catastrophe, it is a prime requisite of disaster prevention.‖22
That is the purpose of collegiate programs in hazards, disasters and what to do about them – emergency management.
John Salter (City of Adelaide). ―A Risk Management Approach to Disaster Management,‖ in Ingleton, p. 113. Neil Britton (New Zealand Ministry of Emergency Management and Civil Defense). ―Political Commitment,‖ in Ingleton, p. 216. 19 Neil Britton. 2001 ―A New Emergency Management for the New Millennium?‖ Keynote Paper, Emergency Management Session, Cities on Volcanoes. 2 nd International Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, 11–16 February 2001. 20 Britton 1999, p. 215. 21 Ellis M. Stanley, Sr. (Emergency Preparedness Department, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California) and William Lee Waugh, Jr. (Department of Public Administration and Urban Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia). ―Emergency Managers for the New Millennium.‖ Handbook of Crisis and Emergency Management. (New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 2001). pp. 694-695. 22 Alexander 2000, p. 249.
17 18
06/27/08 15 Objective 1.6 The next session will deal with the question ―what are hazards and disasters?‖ It may be effective at this point to initiate the students‘ consideration of their perceptions of ―hazards‖ and ―disasters.‖
One way to do that is to ask students to write down their definition of disaster.
After a few minutes to accomplish this task ask for a few volunteered examples. It is not important at this point to seek conclusions, the ―right answer‖ or consensus.
Tell the students to keep their definitions and to reflect upon them as they do the reading for the next class.
06/27/08 16 References Alexander, David. 2000. Confronting Catastrophe--New Perspectives on Natural Disasters. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Britton, Neil (New Zealand Ministry of Emergency Management and Civil Defense). 1999. "Political Commitment," pp. 214-216 in Ingleton. Britton, Neil. 2001. "A New Emergency Management for the New Millennium?" Keynote Paper, Emergency Management Session, Cities on Volcanoes. 2 nd International Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, 11-16 February 2001. Burby, Raymond J. 2001. ―Session 1 Overview.‖ Building Disaster Resilient Communities (FEMA Higher Education Project Working Draft Instructor Guide). Congressional Natural Hazards Caucus Work Group. 2001 (Jan 22). "Discussion Paper for the Congressional Natural Hazards Caucus." At: www.agiweb.org/workgroup Crichton, David. 1999. "The Risk Triangle." Pp. 102-103 in Ingleton. Hamilton, Robert (National Academy of Sciences). 1999. "Natural Disaster Reduction in the 21st Century," pp. 304-307 in Ingleton. Ingleton, Jon (Ed.). 1999. Natural Disaster Management. Leicester, England: Tudor Rose Holdings Limited. Kunkel, Kenneth E., Roger A. Pielke Jr., and Stanley A. Changnon. 1999. ―Temporal Fluctuations in Weather and Climate Extremes That Cause Economic and Human Health Impacts: A Review.‖ Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 80, No. 6, June, pp. 1077-1098. Maskrey, Andrew. 1999. "Reducing Global Disasters." Pp. 84-86 in Ingleton. Mileti, Dennis. 1999. Disasters By Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. Washington, DC, Joseph Henry Press. Mileti, Dennis. 2001. "Risk Assessment." Presentation given April 1, 2001, National Symposium on Mitigating Severe Weather Impacts--Design for Disaster Reduction, Tulsa Convention Center, Tulsa OK, March 31-April 5. National Research Council. Board on Natural Disasters. 1998. Reducing Disaster Losses through Better Information. Washington, DC. NSTC (National Science and Technology Council, Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Natural Disaster Reduction). 1996. Natural Disaster
06/27/08 17 Reduction: A Plan for the Nation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December. Public Entity Risk Institute. 1999. ―Disasters by Design—A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States.‖ PERIScope, Vol.2, No.2, Summer, pp. 3-5. Salter, John. Risk Management in the Emergency Management Context. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 12, no. 4, Summer 1997-98. Salter, John (City of Adelaide, Australia). "A Risk Management Approach to Disaster Management." Pp. 111-113 in Ingleton. Schwab, Anna K., David. J. Brower, Timothy Beatley. 2001. ―Sustainable Development, Resilient Communities and Smart Growth.‖ Session 3 in Working Draft FEMA Higher Education Project College Course Building Disaster Resilient Communities. Stanley, Ellis M. Sr. (Emergency Preparedness Department, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles California) and Waugh, William Lee, Jr. (Department of Public Administration and Urban Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia). ―Emergency managers for the new Millennium.‖ Handbook of Crisis and Emergency Management (New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.) 2001. Tolbert, Eric (Director, North Carolina Division of Emergency Management). 2001. ―U.S. To Face One or Two Catastrophic Events ‗Beyond Comprehension‘.‖ Remarks from presentation during mid-year conference of the National Emergency Management Association, 10-14 February 2001, Crystal City, Virginia, in Emergency Preparedness News, Vol. 25, No. 5, February 27, 2001, p. 42. Twigg, John (Benfield Greg Hazard Research Centre, University College London). 2001. "Physician, Heal Thyself? The Politics of Disaster Mitigation." Disaster Management Working Paper #1. http://bghrc.com. Witt, James Lee. 2001 (April 3). Keynote Presentation, Session III, National Symposium on Mitigating Severe Weather Impacts--Design for Disaster Reduction, Tulsa Convention Center, Tulsa OK, March 31 to April 4, 2001.