11.5.2 Direct economic loss in relation to global GDP, damage to critical infrastructure and number of disruptions to basic services, attributed to disasters
View specific case studies for:
Natural disaster resilience is defined as “the ability of countries, communities, and households to manage change, by maintaining or transforming living standards in the face of shocks or stresses- such as earthquakes, drought, or violent conflict — without compromising their long term prospects.” Protecting economic and critical infrastructure and basic services against natural disasters through a series of well-organized planning is an essential component to ensuring the stability of a community, either at the local, national, or even international level. Under Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11, entitled “Sustainable Cities and Communities,” Target 11.5 states, “By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations.” This analysis will outline key strategies to increase community resilience to natural disasters for economic supply chains, critical infrastructure, and basic services in the Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia (DMV) region, with specific emphasis on disproportionate impacts on minority groups.
As of 2019, weather-related natural disasters have cost the United States more than $1.6 trillion in damage since 1980. With the increasing threat of climate change-induced severe weather events, it is more essential than ever to ensure natural disaster resilience frameworks are in place at the federal and local levels to prepare for events like flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and earthquakes. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) identifies three broad principles to guide natural disaster resilience planning: Information — in which decision makers can accurately assess risks and measure outcomes of resilience strategies, Integration — in which federal efforts are coordinated to create a whole system perspective, and Incentives — which includes the provision of financial and other incentives to increase natural disaster resilience. The goal of any natural disaster resilience strategy should be to have long-term, forward-looking risk reduction strategies in place to ensure the best possible preparedness for the next disaster event.
At the federal level, GAO emphases the importance of federal agencies providing reliable, well rounded climate and disaster-related data, such as flood maps, in addition to providing other technical assistance particularly to smaller, low-income and historically disadvantaged jurisdictions. Federal efforts should also be utilized to assist communities in understanding the return on investment of various risk prevention strategies, including calculations of loss avoidance, costs and benefits of mitigation strategies, and budgeting adjustments to account for resilience frameworks. A standardized definition of disaster resilience goals is also an essential mechanism to ensure a holistic nation-wide monitoring to inform where future resilience investments are needed. Additionally, coordination between federal and local agencies is an essential component to minimizing overlap and ensuring an overarching strategy that utilizes common definitions and resilience standards. According to GAO, key methods to achieving this include facilitating increased coordination across disaster resilience and relief programs, combining federal funding streams for resilience, and leveraging nonfederal partner expertise to ensure strategies are innovative and forward looking. Finally, by implementing regulatory requirements as conditions of financial assistance in areas like building codes is an effective mechanism for creating incentive for resilient-based decision making. Federal assistance like the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is another method to simulate partner investment in resilience funding. Ensuring streamlined, transparent regulations and decreasing complexity and administrative burdens is also a way of minimizing disincentives for organizations to fund disaster resilience projects.
At the city level, the Rockefeller Foundation and Arup developed the City Resilience Framework (CRF) to assist metropolitan areas with understanding and improving their disaster resilience. The CRF consists of four essential dimensions: Health & Wellbeing, Economy & Society, Infrastructure & Environment, and Leadership & Strategy. Under these four categories are specific goals to achieve during a disaster event. They are as follows:
- Health & Wellbeing: Meets basic needs, supports livelihoods and employment, ensures public health services
- Economy & Society: Fosters economic prosperity, ensures social stability, security, and justice, promotes cohesive and engaged communities
- Infrastructure & Environment: Provides reliable communication and mobility, ensures continuity of critical services, provides and enhances natural and manmade assets
- Leadership & Strategy: Promotes leadership and effective management, empowers a broad range of stakeholders, fosters long-term engagement and integrated planning.
Through the Rockefeller Foundation, the CFR also promotes a 100 Resilient Cities Platform, in which 100 cities around the world receive pro bono tools and services from the private sector and non-profit space to address priority shocks and stresses to specific communities. A key component of this strategy is ensuring that stakeholders from all communities are given equal representation in both opportunities to invest and implement disaster resilience strategies and in receiving risk assessment and disaster aid resources.
Vulnerable communities including those living below the poverty line, which is traditionally skewed towards being majorly people of color or other minority groups, are at increased risk to natural disaster damage due to increased exposure to the elements leading to increased susceptibility to increased disaster impact, decreased coping capacities and a limited ability to adapt to new coping capabilities. For example, in California, high-housing costs have resulted in forced movement to more fire-prone areas, with housing builds less suitable to withstand severe weather events. Weather populations are more likely to have access to food or have more funds to rebuild communities, whereas lower income areas do not. Additionally, women are at a greater risk for impact during natural disasters due to restrictions in mobility as a result of being a primary caregiver for children or the elderly and are more likely to be left unemployed as a result of a disaster. Traditionally marginalized communities, including persons with disabilities, people of color, and indigenous populations are more likely to have difficulty with disaster recovery as a result of systemic restriction of key resources, including funds and critical infrastructure. Unequal wealth distribution and historically segregated housing policy may place these groups in more vulnerable locations with less resources to prepare and recover from a natural disaster.
To evaluate how natural disaster resilience is applied in the local context, the following sections will address how Washington DC, Maryland (MD), and Virginia (VA) are improving their natural disaster resilience for events the region is most prone to: namely flooding and hurricanes, before evaluating how these strategies accommodate for the disproportionate impacts of these events on minority or traditionally marginalized groups.
Note: For more information related to climate change’s impact on natural disasters, see the analysis for SDG 13.1.1.
Washington, DC
The primary natural disaster risk for Washington, DC is flooding. DC and the surrounding National Capital region are at increased river, coastal, and interior flood risk. River flooding, or riverine flooding, occurs when heavy rains or snow melt overflow in the Potomac River watershed upstream of the city, while Coastal floods result from tropical storms or hurricanes pushing water up the Potomac from the Chesapeake Bay area. Flash flooding occurs in DC when heavy rainfall overruns the city’s sewer system. Since 2001, there have been several major natural disaster events in the DC area. In 2003, Hurricane Isabel caused widespread damage in DC costing $125 million, three years later, the 2006 Federal Triangle Flood, in which six-inches of rain dropped in six hours, caused three feet of flooding with damage costing over ten million dollars. In 2012, a derecho thunderstorm killed thirteen people and left nearly 70,000 without power, including DC Water, who was unable to refill water reservoirs during this time. Non-flood related natural disaster events include the 2010 blizzard, which brought four of the city’s largest snow events on record in a span of four months, and the 2011 earthquake which caused significant damage to the Washington Monument and National Cathedral.
To address flooding in the District, there are two primary levee systems: the Potomac Park Levee System and the Anacostia River Levee Systems, which are geared toward preventing riverine and coastal flooding from the Potomac and Anacostia rivers. Because DC is not a state, both levee systems were built by the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and are operated by the Department of the Navy (Anacostia) and the National Park Service (Potomac Park). In 2018, the Anacostia River Levee System received an unacceptable rating by the USACE in 2007 and was not accredited by FEMA. In 2016, after the USACE completed a positive levee system evaluation report, FEMA accredited both DC levee systems and issued an updated Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing the reduced flood risk for the District. However, these levees do not protect against interior, or flash flooding. As the climate continues to change, the risk for increased annual rainfall and severe storms indicates that additional protections will be necessary to ensure adequate protection against interior and riverine flood risk in the District. Additionally, a historic information gap exists in tracking interior flood data in the district. As a result, it is difficult to both evaluate the risk of interior flooding and implement effective mitigation strategies.
To combat flood risk in DC, there are several programs in place in addition to the levee systems. First, DC is a beneficiary of the National Flood Insurance Program, a FEMA program which reduces future flood damages by providing flood insurance, floodplain management, and flood hazard mapping. Throughout DC, neighborhoods implement floodplain management regulations in return for federally backed flood insurance for homeowners, renters, and businesses, regardless of flood zone risk levels. The program also provides a set of building standards to lower damage costs in the event of a flood. Additionally, the DC Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE) regulates development within floodplains through implementing building permits that require compliance with both DC Construction Codes and DC Flood Hazard Rules. At present, DOEE is in the process of updating Flood Hazard Rules to account for climate change.
DOEE is also the lead agency for several local programs in DC, including the Silver Jackets Team, which is composed of federal, local, and regional agencies and academic stakeholders to identify and implement solutions to reduce flood risk. DOEE utilizes blue green infrastructure (BGI) and cloudburst (heavy rains) management strategies. BGI consists of solutions to address climate change challenges by connecting urban hydrological functions (Blue infrastructure) to vegetation systems (Green infrastructure) to mitigate flood risk while also providing multi-functional uses throughout the city. DOEE is also utilizing several plans to address flood risk in specific areas, including the Watts Branch Neighborhoods Flood Risk Management, which is also known as the 100-year floodplain. From 2017-2021, DOEE conducted a risk management study in the area to investigate flood risk and identify structural and nonstructural measures that may reduce risk. The project received a FEMA Building Resilience Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Grant to implement a network of natural and blue-green infrastructure projects to reduce flood risk, a project that is currently ongoing.
Additionally, DOEE is also implementing a SW DC/Buzzard Point Flood Resilience Strategy to mitigate flood risk through the implementation of BGI strategies to protect the community from extreme rain events. SW DC is at an elevated risk of experiencing stormwater flooding as a result of overflow from the Potomac and Anacostia rivers. This area has historically been identified as high flood risk by FEMA, and the DOEE Strategy will conduct community outreach and identify key areas of concern to ensure the area receives adequate risk management. The project is funded through the 2019 Resilient DC Plan, and involves coordination between DOEE, DC Department of Parks and Recreation, DC Department of General Services, The DC Department of Homeland Security, and the Emergency Management (HSEMA).
DOEE also implements two programs that attempt to reduce flood risk: RiverSmart and FloodSmart. RiverSmart is a program that provides financial incentives for DC property owners to install green infrastructure such as rain barrels, green roofs, rain gardens, and permeable pavers to both mitigate flood risk and to enrich the natural environment. FloodSmart, similarly, is a pilot program that involves sending flood-risk professionals to homes to provide free flood resilience assessments to identify the best solutions to mitigate flood risk. Particular emphasis is placed on homes within the Special Flood Hazard Area, aka the 100-year floodplain. Afterwhich, homes in DC’s 500-year floodplain will be eligible. The FloodSmart program intends to include the initial evaluation, counseling, and installation of flood proofing and resilience upgrades.
In DC, there is a distinct disproportion in flood risk for minority and traditionally disadvantaged communities. DC is ranked among the most unequal areas in the company as it results in “spatial mismatch,” in which there is discrepancy between good jobs and where lower income workers live. This is largely due to zoning restrictions and racist housing policies that placed many families of color in the land around the Anacostia River, which was historically used for growing tobacco and was exhausted by intensive farming.Further, trash collection, incineration facilities, and other hazardous waste sites and disproportionately concentrated near poorer areas of DC, increasing the risk of toxin exposure for residents.
To evaluate the impact of DC flood programs on these disadvantaged areas, the United Nations Association of the National Capital Area Advocacy Fellows conducted a study on DOEE’s RiverSmart program, assessing the link between resource scarcity and environmental health within the context of DC 11. As a result, the study found that the majority of River Smart installs were in the north side of the city, where the majority of homeowners reside, such as Ward 4. However, wards that are majority composed of renters with low homeownership, such as Ward 2 receive less program density. As such, higher home ownership is correlated to higher program implementation. Areas with lower homeowner rates, such as Ward 8 are composed primarily of low income neighborhoods in addition to housing the highest proportion of Black residents in DC. When applying the implementation of RiverSmart in the context of historic zoning laws, it is clear that a substantial proportion of DC is zoned for single-family residential use, while these residences only comprise 30% of DC’s housing. Because RiverSmart only applies to single-family homes, duplexes, and multi-family homes with four or fewer units, the majority of apartment buildings and other multi-family dwellings are ineligible for the program. To exacerbate matters further, the highest areas of flood risk in DC are in wards with large populations of traditionally disadvantaged communities, including Wards 6, 7, and 8.
Overall, UNA-NCA’s RiverSmart study concluded that RiverSmart implementation was not oriented around flood risk, but rather zoning laws, creating a serious disproportion in program equity. It remains unclear whether or not new programs made in an attempt to increase equity, such as the FloodSmart program or the ongoing Resilience Strategy for SW DC and Buzzard Point, which prioritize areas with the highest flood risk, will effectively mitigate this issue. Nevertheless, the disproportionate distribution of flood risk mitigation resources remains a key concern for DC’s resilience to natural disasters, particularly in the context of climate change.
To read the full UNA-NCA RiverSmart Study, click here.
Maryland
The primary natural disaster hazards in Maryland include severe storms, hurricanes, winter storms, tornadoes, earthquakes, and floods. Between 1953 and 2019, Maryland has reported 34 major disasters, the majority of which being floods and hurricanes. Tidal flooding from the Atlantic Ocean, riverine floods, and interior flooding are all primary flood risks in the state, with events like Hurricane Isabel (2003) and Hurricane Irene (2011) causing $5 billion and $83 million in damages respectively. Additionally, the North American Derecho of 2012 resulted in major power outages in addition to $2.9 billion in damages. Other events, such as winter storms and tornadoes are also common in the state.
To address natural disasters, the Maryland Department of Emergency Management provides resources, action plans, and annual reports related to severe weather and natural disasters. The most recent of these plans is the 2021 Hazard Mitigation Plan, which aims to better integrate hazard mitigation planning across agencies, with an emphasis on flood hazard impacts and risk reduction. The strategy also prioritizes the development of policies that promote environmental justice. In addition, the state publishes After Action Reports for severe weather events, the latest of which being the 2018 Severe Weather and Flooding Report.The Maryland Department of Emergency Management also provides a database providing an overview of all local hazard mitigation plans and events, including whether or not there are sufficient plans in place. Notably, in the DMV area, all plans are in affect save for Prince George’s County, where the Hazard Mitigation Plan expired in November 2022. However, the County is currently implementing a project to improve dam warning systems and is expected to maintain updated mitigation strategies in the coming year.
In addition to its plethora of hazard mitigation strategies, Maryland also implements FEMA hazard mitigation grant programs, including BRICs, Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), and Hazard Mitigation Grants (HMGP). Maryland also facilitates FEMA’s Public Assistance Mitigation fundings to support residents after a disaster. Further, the Maryland Department of the Environment facilitates a Stormwater, Dam Safety, and Flood Management Program which manages stormwater and sediment erosion control programs, which imposes regulations on any development that disturbs at least 5,000 square feet of area, the Municipal Separate Sewer System (MS4) permit program, and implements permits and inspections of Maryland’s 500 dams. The Department also manages Maryland’s flood mitigation strategies, including floodplain regulations and permitting.
In regard to equity in hazard mitigation strategies, Maryland has had a long history of environmental justice concerns. Specific issues of note include clean air quality and wastewater treatment plants, particularly in Prince George’s County and Anne Arundel County. Similarly to DC, many Maryland residents who are low income and/or people of color have historically been pushed into “sacrifice zones” or areas where residents live near dangerous environmental hazards, such as waste treatment facilities. In Baltimore, energy burdens also exacerbate community resilience, as water affordability issues have plagued low income communities, with water prices above the national average. In 2021, Baltimore missed the deadline to implement a water-affordability program, the second time the program has been delayed
To address these concerns, Maryland established an Environmental Justice Commission in 2001, but has received criticism for the body’s inefficiency and lack of representation of communities most severely impacted by environmental risks. 2021 Maryland Senate Bill 674 strengthened the commission to include environmental justice, while the Maryland Campaign for Environmental Human Rights have been pushing to add the right to a healthy environment to the Maryland Bill of Rights. Maryland Department of the Environmental also has several environmental justice resources, including a screening tool to inform sitting, permitting, enforcement, and infrastructure improvement decisions as it relates to their environmental justice impact, in addition to providing a data portal that promotes transparency related to citizen complaints, violations, and compliance inspection status. The Department features a toxics release inventory, a green registry, an air toxin mapping tool, and an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) EJScreen, which combines environmental and socioeconomic indicators.
Virginia
In Virginia, the primary natural disaster risks are tornadoes, landslides, and hurricanes. Between 1953 and 2019, Virginia declared 67 major disasters to FEMA, the majority of which being severe storms and hurricanes. Tropical storms, including hurricanes, typically hit Virginia every 1-3 years. Significant events include the 1969 Hurricane Camille, which left 153 dead and is noted as the strongest and deadliest hurricane in the state, and Hurricane Isabel, which cost the state $2 billion. Wildfires, tornadoes, and winter storms are also events that typically occur once or twice a year, with major landslides occurring on an average of every 10-15 years. More recently, the 2012 derecho, 2016 February tornado outbreak, and flooding events in 2022 have emphasized the expected increase in severe weather as a result of climate change.
To address natural disasters, the Virginia Government refers to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), which is responsible for the development and coordination of disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. DEQ works within the Virginia Emergency Support Team, a group of 300 private, federal, state, and nonprofit representatives to address natural and human-caused disasters. DEQ specifically has plans for severe weather debris management, hurricane preparation for petroleum tank owners, emergency animal mortality management, and drought responses. At the local level, Local Emergency Planning Committees are required to provide annual review and public information about issues related to hazard mitigation. The Virginia Department for Emergency Management (VDEM) is responsible for facilitating special operations and disaster logistics during disaster events, coordinating disaster training, and implementing federal grants to support communities before and after disaster events. These grants include the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants, BRICs, Flood Mitigation Assistance, Recovery Grants, and Preparedness Grants.
In regard to environmental equity in Virginia, the state has utilized restrictive zoning practices, similar to Maryland, that has resulted in low income and traditionally disadvantaged communities being more likely to live near toxic or hazardous facilities. According to the Virginia Environmental Justice Collaborative, residents in these areas are five times more likely to be exposed to pollution. As a result, DEQ has released draft guidance on environmental justice in permitting processes, in addition to being bound by the 2020 Environmental Justice Act, which enhances DEQ’s environmental responsibilities to include environmental equity. DEQ has identified target communities that have traditionally received less disaster mitigation resources as key focus areas for plans to improve environmental justice initiatives. Additionally, Virginia hosts a Council on Environmental Justice, which releases an annual report on the state of environmental justice initiatives throughout the state. Presently, according the Draft 2022 Report recommends the state to continue to address water infrastructure, safety and resilience, create an office of Just and Equitable Clean Energy Transition in addition to a Virginia Clean Active Accessible Transportation Task Force, and to keep Virginia an active member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.