Abstract
Exposure to natural hazards tends to be poorly understood and yet implicitly accepted by a large proportion of populations at risk. Some people through years of experience and time-tested coping mechanisms effectively respond to most hazards. Others, lacking skills and experience, are dependent on institutional response systems for immediate assistance and long-term recovery. Clearly, both approaches can reduce losses; however, the former strategies often prove more cost effective. How then, can loss reduction be handled with minimal external involvement? Are there not strategies that can reduce the impact of natural hazards and minimize exposure to these risks? Introduction of hazard mitigation strategies can begin to address these concerns in a timely and cost effective manner. Federal institutions in Canada and the United States recognize this potential, and in response, have developed policies and designed programs to limit the impact of hazards. To further collective thinking on hazard mitigation, this paper surveys current legislation and programs in both countries, makes a comparative assessment, and seeks to identify implications for mitigation policy within the framework of the Canadian IDNDR initiative. Perceptions of mitigation are explored to create a common foundation from which to address the nature, direction, and structure of mitigation policy and programs in Canada. Clarity of purpose, awareness of context, and acknowledgment of limitations and conflicts represent crucial aspects in the evolution of mitigation strategies. Through awareness, understanding, and a willingness to engage in dialogue new ways of thinking can be employed to decrease the impact of natural hazards on society and the environment.
This essay is an abridged version of the original discussion paper funded and published by Emergency Preparedness Canada, an agency of Canada’s federal Department of National Defense. The essay does not necessarily reflect the policy point of view of the federal government.
Horizontal integration refers to the coordinated effort of government departments and agencies at one jurisdictional level, as well as cooperation among private companies across different industrial/commercial sectors. Vertical integration refers to communication within national hierarchical structures, generally, but not exclusively intraministerial liaison. The overall objective is to enhance information flows and facilitate broadly based decision-making in a trans-organizational setting.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bruce, J.: 1994, Introductory remarks, in J. McCulloch and D. Etkin (eds), Proceedings of a Workshop on Improving Responses to Atmospheric Extremes: The Role of Insurance and Compensation, Environment Canada, Downsview, pp. 1–1—1–5.
Burton, I.: 1996, Personal Communication, January 12th
Burton, I.: 1994, Costs of atmospheric hazards, in J. McCulloch and D. Etkin (eds), Proceedings of a Workshop on Improving Responses to Atmospheric Extremes: The Role of Insurance and Compensation, Environment Canada, Downsview, pp. 2–1—2–11.
Canadian National Committee for IDNDR: 1994, National Report of Canada, Royal Society of Canada/Canadian Academy of Engineering, Ottawa
deBeaupré, A.: 1996, Personal Communication, January 3rd.
Emergency Preparedness Canada (EPC): 1996a, Federal Emergency Preparedness in Canada, Draft, Unpublished.
Emergency Preparedness Canada (EPC): 1996b, Civil Defense in Canada 1936–1972, Draft, Unpublished.
Emerson, W. and N. Mineta: 1995, The Natural Disaster Protection Partnership Act - Legislative Outline, Letter and attachments, June 6th.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): 1995a, National Mitigation Strategy - Partner-ships for Building Safer Communities, Mitigation Directorate, Washington, D.C.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): 1995b, Mitigation - Cornerstone for Building Safer Communities,Mitigation Directorate, Washington, D.C.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): 1994a, Placing the Cornerstone - The Mitigation Directorate First-Year Report, November 29, 1993-November 28, 1994, Mitigation Directorate, Washington, D.C.
Fowler, R. R.: 1993, Report to Parliament on the Operation of the Emergency Preparedness Act, April 1, 1992 March 31, 1993, Minister of Supply and Services, Ottawa.
Government of Canada: 1989a, Canadian Civil Defense,Fact Sheet, Emergency Preparedness Canada, Ottawa.
Government of Canada: 1989b, Federal Emergency Policy,Fact Sheet, Emergency Preparedness Canada, Ottawa.
Government of Canada: 1988a, The Emergencies Act, Chapter 29, pp. 777–818, Queen’s Printer for Canada, Ottawa.
Government of Canada: 1988b, The Emergency Preparedness Act, Chapter 11, pp. 221–225, Queen’s Printer for Canada, Ottawa.
Government of the United States: 1988, Robert T Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, P.L. 93–288 as amended, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Hewitt, K.: 1983, Interpretations of Calamity - from the Viewpoint of Human Ecology, Allen &Unwin Inc., Boston.
Hewson, M. D.: 1996, Personal Communication, January 4th.
Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee (IFMRC): 1994, Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain Management into the 21 st Century, (The Galloway Report), United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC/RCS): 1993, World Disaster Report, Martinus Nijhoff Pub., The Netherlands.
Jacobs, J.: 1992, Systems of Survival - A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics, Random House, New York.
Lechat, M. F.: 1990, ‘The International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction: Background and Objectives’, Disasters, 14(1), 1–6.
Michleburg, R.: 1996, China wary of economic reform, The Globe and Mail,February 19: A10.
Mileti, D. S. et al.: 1995, Towards an integration of natural hazards and sustainability, The Environmental Professional, 17(2), 117–126.
Moore, R. T.: 1996, Personal Communication, January 19th.
Myers, M. F.: 1996, Personal Communication, January 26th.
National Research Council: 1994, Facing the Challenge - The U.S. National Report to the IDNDR World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Neville, D. C.: 1996, Personal Communication, January 3rd.
Newton, J.: 1995, Coping in Context-Adaptation to Environmental Hazards in the Northern Regions of Canada, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Toronto.
Peters, D. W.: 1996, Personal Communication, January 3rd.
Platt, R.: 1996, ‘Hazard Mitigation: Cornerstone or Grains of Sand? ’, Disaster Research 202, Boulder, Colorado, Item 1.
Quarantelli, E. L.: 1989. Planning and management for the prevention and mitigation of natural disasters, especially in a metropolitan context: Initial questions and issues which need to be addressed, Planning for Crisis Relief Vol. 3 Planning and management for the Prevention and Mitigation from Natural Disasters in Metropolis. pp. 1–17, Nagoya, Japan.
Ross, A.: 1994, The Canadian insurance industry, in J. McCulloch and D. Etkin (eds.), Proceedings for a Workshop on Improving Responses to Atmospheric Extremes: The Role of Insurance and Compensation, Environment Canada, Toronto, pp. 4–1—4–7.
Ross, A.: 1996, Climatic Change and its Impact on the Canadian Insurance Industry, Presentations at the Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, February 19, 1996.
Rossi et al.: 1983, Victims of the Environment — Loss from Natural Hazards in the United States,1970–1980, Plenum Press, New York.
Rubin, C. B. (ed).: 1985, Community Recovery from a Major Natural Disaster, Institute of Behavioural Science, Boulder, Colorado.
Shea, R. F. Jr.: 1996, Personal Communication, January 19th.
Showalter, P. Sands, Riebsame, W. E., and Myers, M. F.: 1993, Natural Hazards Trends in the United States: A Preliminary Review for the 1990s, Institute of Behavioural Science, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Simard, A. J.: 1996, Personal Communication, January 4th.
Treacy, M. and Wiersema, F.: 1995, The Discipline of Market Leaders, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Reading, Massachusetts.
Tsai, F. Y.: 1996, Personal Communication, January 19th.
Tubbesing, S. K.: 1989, ‘Natural Hazard Reduction in the United States: A Brief Assessment’, Report of the Colorado Workshop on Hazard Mitigation in the 1990’s, Natural Hazards Research and Application Information Center, Boulder, pp. 35–37.
United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs: 1992, Internationally Agreed Glossary of Basic Terms related to Disaster Management, DNA/93/36, Geneva.
Vollard, R. H.: 1996, Personal Communication, January 18th.
Whiteley, R. C.: 1991, The Customer Driven Company — Moving from Talk to Action,The Forum Corporation, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Reading, Massachusetts.
Witt, J. L.: 1995, Presentation at National Mitigation Conference, December 6, 1995, Arlington, Virginia.
Witt, J. L. and Rubin, R. E.: 1995, Administration Policy Paper — Natural Disaster Insurance and Related Issues, Federal Emergency Management Agency and Department of the Treasury, Washington, D.C.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Newton, J. (1997). Federal Legislation for Disaster Mitigation: A Comparative Assessment Between Canada and the United States. In: El-Sabh, M.I., Venkatesh, S., Lomnitz, C., Murty, T.S. (eds) Earthquake and Atmospheric Hazards. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5034-7_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5034-7_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-6113-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-5034-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive