Emergency Planning: The impact is relative

Posted on March 6, 2012November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

We spend a lot of time trying to define the differences between emergencies, disasters and catastrophes and with good reason. We know that there are qualitative differences between events that influence how we respond. But that's the big picture – the strategic level. It's easy to forget that at the victim level, disasters are relative. It's all about how it affects me, the victim.

I was reminded of this yesterday. We had a couple of minor earthquakes in the Bay Area along the very active Hayward fault. The temblors occurred early in the morning and only minor damage was reported. I slept through most of it.

Later that evening, we had a minor power interruption in San Francisco that affected 6000+ customers for an hour. Which do you think had the most impact on those people in the outage zone? Everyone was talking about the earthquake but this minor outage probably affected more people directly.

So the point to remember is that there are no "minor" emergencies from the victim's perspective. We need to watch how we refer to events and make sure that our response is driven by need and not just magnitude.

Tsunami warning budget cuts a false economy

Posted on February 29, 2012November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs1 Comment on Tsunami warning budget cuts a false economy

The San Jose Mercury News reports that the White House is proposing to hit the National National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with a $4.6 million cut to tsunami programs put in place after the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004. The cuts include a $1 million reduction to the system of buoys that provide early warning of tsunamis. We are assured that this reduction won't affect public safety as most of the system will still operate. It just means that repairs will be a bit slower.

Following the 2004 tsunami, the warning system was increased from 6 buoys to 39 in acknowledgement of the risk tsunamis posed to coastal communities in the United States. Currently 10 of the bouys are out of service and NOAA says they will "do their best" after the budget cuts to make sure that no more than 11 are ever out of service at any given time.

Is someone unclear on the concept here? Would we accept it if 25% of a building's fire alarms were inoperable? What about the warning systems on nuclear power plants? What if that annoying "check engine" light on you car only worked 75% of the time?

It's a pretty simple concept: early warning saves lives.  The better the data, the more accurate the prediction. The more accurate the prediction, the better we do at safeguarding lives. Knowing that something is heading your way gives you time to prepare and, if necessary, evacuate at-risk populations.

Over the past few years we've send a severe deterioration in our natural hazards warning systems. NOAA has had to make significant cuts to the US Geological Survey, which deals with earthquake predictions, and to the National Weather Service, which provides early warning for storms, floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes.

What's particularly galling about this latest cut is that it's a false economy that is totally unnecessary in budget terms. Rounding errors in the national budget probably exceed a million dollars. It's chump change. Hell, you could probably find it in the seat cushions in the White House.

Give our experience last year with damage to the West Coast from the Japanese tsunami, degrading our early warning system is just plain dumb.

Drought, climate change, and slow-onset disasters

Posted on February 14, 2012November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

We spend a lot of our time planning for the sudden, unexpected event. These are the events that leave you in little doubt that they are significant – major floods, earthquakes, fires, etc. But what about the slow-onset events that sneak up on you? These are less easy to identify. It's hard to recognize the point at which a problem becomes an emergency and then crosses the line into disaster.

The problem with slow-onset disasters is that they usually slip under the emergency services radar. They typically begin as someone else's problem and emergency services are not engaged until the situation becomes a crisis. Consequently, we spend a lot of time determining who owns the problem and who should head the crisis management team.

Case in point is the worsening drought situation in the United States. The most recent US Drought Monitor shows roughly half of the United States in a state of drought and almost a third in the highest category, exceptional drought.

The problem is not confined to the United States. A  2010 study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research showed worsening conditions worldwide over the next 30 years. The author of the study, Aiguo Dai, says:

“We are facing the possibility of widespread drought in the coming decades, but this has yet to be fully recognized by both the public and the climate change research community. If the projections in this study come even close to being realized, the consequences for society worldwide will be enormous.”

Drought is the classic slow-onset disaster and mitigating its effects require measures that take time to put in place. If we are to be effective planners, we need to start thinking about this problem now in strategic, long-range terms. Drought does not require first responders until the situation has truly deteriorated to a crisis. And by then it will be too little, too late.

Earthquake Risk: A blueprint for disaster housing

Posted on February 7, 2012November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

The San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) has just issued a new report, Safe Enough to Stay, that examines housing needs in San Francisco following a major earthquake.  SPUR estimates that a loss of just 5% of housing stock could result in a major outmigration that could significantly slow recovery. SPUR's analysis suggests that 25% of our housing stock is at risk. The goal of the report is to make recommendations to gradually increase the ability of citizens to remain in their homes during repairs, reducing the dependency on congregate shelters.

What makes this report so interesting is that SPUR makes specific and logical recommendations based on a careful estimation of the potential impact of a major earthquake in San Francisco. While so many of these reports make sweeping generalizations that are short on the "how-to", the SPUR report offers a practical blueprint for increasing resilience. What the report says about the need for housing and its recommendations for a pre-earthquake evaluation engineering standard is useful reading for any jurisdiction that has a seismic risk.

SPUR's interest in earthquakes comes as no surprise: the organization was founded in 1910 to improve the quality of housing following the 1906 earthquake and fires. This report is just the latest achievement in a long line of significant contributions to disaster planning.

Public warning takes a step forward

Posted on February 2, 2012November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

The folks on the Google Crisis Response Team have come up with an interesting concept. By making use of the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP), they are able to post warnings from credible sources to Google maps to create a public alerting system. Currently the system is only providing warnings from the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, the US Geological Survey and the National Weather Service. However, they have a mechanism to include warnings from state and local government organizations and expect the system to grow rapidly.

Many of my colleagues have been working on CAP since 2001 and it's great to see the protocol making the leap to social media. This is exactly what CAP is intended to do – allow warning information to be freely exchanged across multiple platforms.

Currently the Google system is displayed when you perform searches on Google maps. However, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone will quickly figure out a way to push warnings to the end user. Meanwhile, the Google public alerting system has the potential to be a one-stop source for warning information, something we've been needing for a long time. 

Social media is not a substitute fax machine

Posted on January 31, 2012November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs3 Comments on Social media is not a substitute fax machine

For the past few years I've been blogging and writing on why government agencies are having problems adapting to social media. In a recent article on his blog, homeland security expert Chris Battle sums up the issues very eloquently. In speaking to his law enforcement colleagues, Battle reminds them in very direct language that social media is about a dialog and that government agencies can no longer control the message.

If we continue to look at social media as simply a means of getting our message out, we fail both to engage the public and to make full use of this new medium. As Battle points out, social media is not merely a news aggregator or a substitute fax machine. It's not simply about sending routine information. It's about a willingness to hold a conversation. It's about understanding that each form of social media requires different composition – you can't just tweet your press release. It's about understanding that each platform may connect with a different audience.

So stop thinking about social media as press tools. Think instead about building a constituency. If you want credibility during crisis, you need to have credibility before the crisis.

Inadequate preparedness has its price

Posted on January 26, 2012November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

"I should have prepared an adequate disaster manual and raised awareness among teachers about the level of danger."

These words were part of the apology issued by Kashiba Teruyuki, principal of a Japanese elementary school that suffered the deaths of 74 students and 10 teachers during last year's tsunami. Only 34 students survived. The apology came after the release of a study about the actions of teachers and officials in the tsunami. The study was intended to anwer questions posed by the families of the deceased about the adequacy of preparedness. Although Kashiba was not at the school during the tsunami, he accepted responsibility for inadequately preparing his school for the tsunami.

The lesson here is that while those in charge of organizations may consider preparedness a distraction from daily business and a low priority, your view will change after a disaster when your staff or clients seek answers to why your response was inadequate. How will you respond when the civil grand jury or court asks why you failed to prepare? More importantly, how will you feel knowing that your inaction led to unnecessary deaths?

Kashiba Teruyuki has an answer for you: "I know I am beyond forgiveness, no matter how much I apologize." 

Does anyone read the Constitution anymore?

Posted on January 12, 2012November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

A friend and I were discussing how the focus in schools on 18th and 19th century US history results in students knowing little or nothing about US history after World War II. Couple this with the lack of civics courses that provide a basic understanding of how government works and its no surprise that the average US citizen has no grasp of US foreign and domestic policy or the events that brought us to where we are today. More importantly, they have no idea how important the Constitution is to our civil liberties.

What's more amazing to me is that this phenomenon is not limited to the younger generations or to the average person. Based on our policies since September 11th, knowledge of the Constitution does not seem to be a requirement to serve in government. Witness the inability of the front runners in the 2008 Presidential election to answer a simple question on the powers of the office for which they were competing or the erosion of civil rights fostered by the "war on terrorism" over the past ten years. Read some of the comments of the current candidates on how they would limit the power of the Supreme Court, despite the Constitution's system of checks and balances.

Here's an even better example of the problem: three lawmakers in New Hampshire have introduced a bill requiring that all bills addressing individual rights or liberties include a direct quote from the Magna Carta. After introducing the bill, one legislator admitted he needed to "bone up" on the provisions of the document. Another said that there were issues that were not conceived of at the time the Magna Carta was written and it was a bit out of date. The third said it was intended to honor the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta at Runnymede in 1215 and that there would be no penalties for not following the law - it's just a "recommendation that would be nice to follow."

So of the three that introduced the bill, one hasn't really read it, one thinks it's irrelevant and the third is willing to enact a law that he doesn't expect anyone to follow. Talk about unclear on the concept!

Of course the Magna Carta is much shorter than the US Constitution and some of the copies have very striking illumination (i.e. pretty pictures). Maybe someone will actually read it.

Increase your credibility: Just say, “no”

Posted on January 10, 2012November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs

When was the last time you said, "no" to a client or superior? It's not an easy thing to do but sometimes it's absolutely essential. We're often a victim of our own success and our clients and superiors think we can do it all. Sometimes we even encourage that attitude because it boosts our own ego. But in doing so, we're sowing the seeds of failure.

No matter how good you are, you can't do it all well all the time. Pretending otherwise raises the expectations of your client or superior that you do anything. When you fail, you can totally destroy your credibility.

I once found myself at a community meeting that was extremely upset with a local utility provider because of a recent release of hazardous materials. This particular  community formed the core of the my mayor's constituency and was politically very important. They demanded that the City provide certain services that I knew we could not do. I took a deep breath and told them, "no."

You could have heard a pin drop. No one had ever dared to refuse their demands.

Then I told them why we couldn't do it. They presented a second alternative which I also felt could not be done. I could feel the tension in the room and started mentally revising my resume. Fortunately, the third option they offered was something that I could do. I committed to it and gave them a date when it would be done. Believe me, I made sure it was done.

What was amazing to me was what happened afterwards. My credibility in the community soared and I was viewed as one of the few in government that would give them honest answers. I had no trouble engaging them in future projects.

While there's no doubt that there was a bit of luck on my side, the lesson from that meeting has served me in good stead over the years. I believe that managing expectations by being honest about your capacity is the only ethical thing to do. This is the reason I sometimes turn down projects – I am realistic about what I can and can't do.

So give it a try – it's scary the first few times but, in the long run, you actually increase your credibility.

Gas pipeline safety: rewarding the wrong thing?

Posted on December 28, 2011November 27, 2025 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs2 Comments on Gas pipeline safety: rewarding the wrong thing?

As a consultant, one of the things I tend to look for when evaluating a client's program is something psychologist call "cognitive dissonance". Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort caused by holding two conflicting cognitions (ideas, values, beliefs, etc.). In simpler terms, it's the internal conflict you feel when you're told to do one thing but are rewarded for doing something else.

Case in point is a recent article on the Pacific Gas and Electric Company's incentive program for gas surveys. These gas surveys are used to determine the overall safety of the gas pipeline system and to direct repair crews to potential problem areas. One would think that the company would have an incentive program that encourages finding and correcting problems. Instead, PG&E's program rewarded supervisors and crews who found fewer leaks and kept repair costs down. The conflict between being told that your job is to find leaks but rewarding you for not finding leaks creates cognitive dissonance.

The results are predictable – people will tend to perform the tasks for which they are rewarded and avoid those for which they are penalized. When internal whistle-blowers finally got the attention of senior management in April 2008, PG&E began an inspection of its gas system that by December 2008 had found more leaks than had been reported between 2004 and 2008.

Although the incentive program was discontinued in 2008, it takes a long time for an organization to change it's culture. During an emergency survey following the San Bruno pipeline explosion in 2010, PG&E found 38 major gas leaks, 4 serious enough to require reports to the Federal government. Survey crews had only reported six major leaks the previous year.

This is an extreme case of cognitive dissonance, to be sure, but it's not really all that unusual – I find examples of it all the time in government and business. So take the time to look at what results you're trying to achieve with your programs and compare them with the behaviours you're actually rewarding. You may find out why you're not achieving the results you want.