Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Typhoon Haiyan and sending old shoes: Don't do it

The news coverage of the damage wrought by Typhoon Haiyan has been remarkably...intense, if we count the number of words, hours, and web pages, blogs, and tweets related to it. In most cases, the news media coverage is fairly typical of Western coverage of non-Western disasters: dazed and dispossessed people looking beseechingly into the camera for our help. Their own agency--their ability to make decisions about their future and to work with aid agencies and government officials--is usually forgotten. 

Help surely is needed. But your shoes, old clothes, expired drugs, canned food, and God-knows-what else is not going to help. As Jessica Alexander, an experienced aid worker found, the impulse to give things to disaster survivors (as Craig Fugate calls them--not "victims") travels like wildfire. Yet, as she knows from her own experience, "well-meaning people repeatedly get it wrong." Indeed, the term "well meaning" is de rigeur in all stories about the entirely human desire to help suffering people.

While the impulse to help is strong, so, apparently, is the impulse to clean out closets, yielding donations of old food, old medicine, old shoes, and old food that aid organizations have to sort, repackage, and...sometimes distribute. But often they just warehouse these things. People with better things to do--distributing appropriate aid supplies--are left sorting through what is usually junk.

Of course, the impulse is not always bad--the movement to send teddy bears to Newtown after the Sandy Hook shootings was motivated by the best qualities of compassion and concern. But Newtown was overwhelmed by both the shootings, and the logistical challenges of managing all the teddy bears.

Indeed, as noted in what may be one of the only accurate and useful listicles in the history of the medium, Dave Roos at howstuffworks.com provides an excellent list of the "10 worst things to donate after a disaster:
  • used clothing
  • shoes
  • blankets
  • teddy bears
  • medicine [particularly half-used over-the-counter stuff that's beyond its expiration date]
  • pet supplies
  • mixed items [apparently, some people just box up some stuff and "overwhelm" communities with "disorganized generosity"].
  • canned food and bottled water
  • your unsolicited help [which can lead to what some call a "second disaster"]
  • money to the wrong people [that is, fraudsters who take advantage of people's generosity]
How should we help the survivors of Haiyan? Through cash donations to reputable charitable organizations, such as those listed in The Lede blog in the New York Times. As the Times notes, charities should be checked out carefully, particularly ones that send out appeals--Charity Navigator is one of the most often cited sources of information about charity performance. 

Cash is everything that material donations are not: cash is lightweight, easily transported (by electronic transfers), it can be put to use on the immediate needs of the moment, and it can be used by real experts in disaster relief. It won't cause disaster survivors to pick through worn clothing or four-inch high heeled shoes, and won't humiliate people who are confronted with food, clothing, and other items that are culturally or climatically inappropriate--who needs a winter coat in a tropical region? 








 

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Movie about the September 11 boatlift

Kathy from our class shared this fascinating short film about how the folks with all kinds of boats converged on Manhattan to evacuate people from lower Manhattan on 9/11. Jim Kendra, whose work we read this term, has studied this, and has done excellent work--this film is a wonderful overview of what happened on the water that day.


Thursday, September 5, 2013

What obligations do neighbors have in hazard mitigation

This fascinating article in the New York Times is about how people in a coastal community in New Jersey are shaming neighbors into allowing the construction of a large sand dune in front of their property. The dune would protect property from storm surge. The problem is that the people who won't allow the dune to be built put other people in danger by refusing to allow the dune. They cannot be forced to allow it, but it appears that they are being coerced, and some of the holdouts are not happy.

This article raises so many interesting issues, including


  • What is our obligation to the community to mitigate storm hazards in a legal system characterized by individual property rights?
  • Why doesn't the government just exercise its powers of eminent domain to build the dune? (Because compensating people for such a "taking" is expensive)
  • Why should the government be building hazard mitigation works, like a dune, or other such things such as groins, levees, and "hardened" beaches? Are these just subsidies to wealthy property owners? 
These are the sorts of tough questions that policy makers have to address when regulating land use in hazardous areas.

The Problems with Flood Insurance

I became interested in flooding in the late 1990s, when I worked on a project through the National Center for Environmental Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) in Santa Barbara, California. In studying policy matters relating to flood mitigation, it became clear that the flood insurance program was not working well. This article in the New York Times explains some reasons why.

Welcome to the Disaster Policy Blog

Welcome, and thank you for visiting this blog. This page was set up to support my course titled PA 553: Disaster Policy at North Carolina State University, but it may appeal to others interested in the study of disasters.

Here on this blog, I will post interesting news articles, links to videos about course topics, and other news from the world of disaster research. I invite reasoned commentary, and particularly urge my students to join conversations, ask questions, and otherwise participate. Of course, if you have any questions about the course or my work, please email me!