DesignSafe Radio

The economics of natural hazards engineering Kevin Simmons, Professor of Economics Austin College After spending 17 years working for an electric utility, Kevin Simmons enrolled in PhD program at Texas Tech thinking about starting a new career in the energy sector. But then, a prominent wind engineering researcher, Kishor Mehta, recruited him to examine the societal impacts of engineering against wind hazards. After examining variables like MLS data in Galveston, Texas, and running models, Simmons determined that indeed, wind mitigation features had strong positive impact on the selling price of a home. That became his dissertation. Since then, Simmons has found his calling as a researcher, including a stint at the National Severe Storms Lab in Norman, Oklahoma. Today, he continues to investigate the economics of natural hazards mitigation. Simmons describes his work studying the town of Moore, Oklahoma, which suffered 3 EF5 tornadoes in 14 years. He discusses the specific mitigations incorporated into the city’s building code, including things like wind-rated garage doors. His studies indicated that, over time, the cost of implementing the codes beats the estimated damage across the life of the house, with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 3:1. And he describes other assessments, including the hurricane-prone zone in Florida, where coastal areas have additional building code requirements. (That study will appear in the May issue of Land Economics.) Overall, he says, building codes reduce property damage and loss in two ways. First, homes built after code implementation had 53% less damage. Second, the codes reduced the likelihood that an insurance claim would need to be filed at all. All toted up, there was a 72 percent reduction in filed claims from wind losses, compared to construction cost increases. Simmons details the findings. Simmons discusses different economic considerations when it comes to flooding. He stresses that city planners need to consider potential flooding before building. As an economist, he finds it tragic that people do not take wind (or other) hazards into account before building. Generally speaking, he says, it doesn’t cost that much more to build a strong structure. Retrofits cost more, he says. And he is not optimistic that people are prepared to take natural hazards into account. “The human tendency is to fix things quick and cheaply,” he says. Ironically, he adds, in his studies he has observed that a destructive tornado will raise awareness about life safety during storms, and will tend to spike demand for tornado shelters. Nevertheless, new construction is still problematic for most towns in Oklahoma. Data show that new codes increase the cost of construction, and cities fear that developers will avoid building in communities with higher building costs. His research shows, however, that this is not necessary a problem. He recently compared Moore, Oklahoma, a city with tough codes, with the nearby city of Norman, without such building regulations. The study found there was no difference in real estate development between towns. Simmons discusses retrofits for wind storms, and specifically, work that U of Florida researcher David Prevatt has done to devise techniques for driving down the cost of retrofits. He refers to a recent study at the U of Alabama, where homes built to new standards have been shown to increase in value. If this data holds up across markets, Simmons says, it is justified to retrofit, and retrofitting may be seen as an investment, not a cost. He suggests that states have incentives that encourage citizens in wind-hazard regions to retrofit. For an economist like Simmons, it is exciting that engineers are able to remove financial objections people might have to retrofitting their homes and businesses.

Barbeque diplomacy with Ben Preston Ben Preston is fascinated not just by scientific problems, but by how humans respond to weather and other large-scale hazards. He wants to know what societies can do to make different, better choices – to be more resilient over time. After events like hurricanes and wildfires, we feel vulnerable. Cities want to prepare better, attribute responsibility and grant compensation. But why do we value putting people in low lying coastal areas in the first place? Why do we value building expensive subdivisions at wildland interface? Preston discusses risk and our perception of it. Why protect against terrorism but not hurricanes? He says when it comes to hazard and risk, people tend to de-prioritize disasters that are familiar, routine, that we do not have control over. We figure we have to live with it. Because we view terrorism as a human choice, Preston says, we tend to think they can prevent it. In terms of resilient infrastructure, another problem we face is the consequences of old decisions. So when city managers are trying to manage storm water, for example, they are concerned about future hazards, but the may be constrained by an antiquated storm water system. For example, in Houston, people are dealing with the fact that the city is built in a flood plain. Outcomes are products of old human decisions, he says. So how do we deal with problems in the future? Preston says we have to be in it for the long haul. We can’t be resilient instantly. Preston says the good news is that the concept of resilience has caught on at the local level, where the problems are immediate and an existential issue. In situations where communities need to leave an area, Preston says, people are forced to assess their values and make hard decisions, such as how do to pay for the move or preserve the community. Cities and state governments can enhance resilience by thinking long term, by considering what problems will look like decades in the future. Depending on where you live, Preston says, people can develop common values. For instance, protecting homes and people should be a value. So how can communities be proactive? We have a long way to go, he says. Barbeque diplomacy. Preston says it can be hard to convince people to adopt resilience as a value. So, he practices what he calls “barbeque diplomacy,” a friendly approach to engaging people in informal settings -- something he learned while living in Australia, where they take their barbies seriously. You can try to show people data, he says, but it won’t help if they don’t perceive it’s their problem. So, Preston says when talking with people who don’t share his values, he tries to give examples that might affect people personally, such as electricity costs. Try to have realistic expectations, he says. People need to see the benefits of adopting policies that ensure resilience. We’ll get there, he says. https://www.rand.org/about/people/p/preston_benjamin_lee.html [email protected] @bl_preston https://www.rand.org/news/experts.html?topic=natural-hazards https://www.rand.org/about/people/p/preston_benjamin_lee.html

Episode 28 Science Based Decision Making by Natural Hazards Engineering Research Infrastructure

Do you ever wonder how meteorologists get their hurricane data? On today’s show, host Dan Zehner gets the answers from Commander Justin Kibbey, one of NOAA’s “hurricane hunter” pilots. Kibbey flies NOAA’s P-3 Orion aircraft missions straight into hurricanes, multiple times, while a crew of weather experts and technicians gather data to predict the path and strength of the storm. A U.S. Naval Academy graduate, Kibbey spent 10 years doing aerial reconnaissance and wartime flights over places like Iraq and Afghanistan. He flew the P-3, a four-engine turboprop designed to fly low and hunt submarines. After his Naval service, Kibbey joined NOAA’s crew of hurricane hunters, where he is wrapping up his eighth season. Kibbey describes NOAA’s rugged planes (built in the 1970s and based on 1950s designs) as flying research laboratories. The aircraft are powerful, with redundant systems, and built to fly low. Each mission is crewed with 15-20 people: NOAA officers, navigators, government and civilian technicians and meteorologists – and scientists, all working to collect data as they fly though hurricane storms. Kibbey describes the low altitude flights (5,000 to 12,000 feet), aiming for the “sweet spot,” or the eye of the storm, to get what he calls “an MRI” of the hurricane. In the no-wind, low-pressure center, researchers gather data for creating the spaghetti models that the public studies to see where a storm will travel. One tool used by hurricane hunters is tail Doppler radar, which reveals a storm’s inner structure. The missions also deploy “dropsondes” small cylindrical tubes that fall through the atmosphere measuring pressure, temperature, humidity and wind speed, providing a profile of a column of air. Assembled together, these data paint an accurate picture of a storm and its intensity. NOAA’s planes cover the breadth of a storm, 400 miles or more. While satellites can provide some data, a plane in the storm provides the most and most accurate information. Kibbey describes flying through Superstorm Sandy, the largest he’s experienced. He also recalls his first mission as a hurricane hunter, an eight-hour flight through Hurricane Earl. It was a white-knuckle ride, until the plane passed into the eye. He describes the shock of seeing stars overhead – and a bolt of lightning that lit up the entire eye wall. One of his most turbulent flights was in Hurricane Irma, which put the plane through the wringer, he says. The crew on this flight was particularly stressed – because many of them had family in the path of the hurricane. The goal for hurricane hunters is to find out where the storm is will go, via reconnaissance and research. Technology constantly improves, and Kibbey speculates someday the research can be gathered remotely. Already, crews launch UAVs into hurricanes, into places too dangerous to fly a plane. And satellites may one day be able make readings as accurate as instruments on flying laboratories. Until then, from June through November, hurricane hunters fly through storms gathering data that can save lives. Hurricane data, including photos, from the 2017 hurricane season www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/data_sub/hurr.html More about NOAA’s Hurricane Hunters www.omao.noaa.gov/learn/aircraft-o…urricane-hunters Hurricane Hunters on Facebook www.facebook.com/NOAAHurricaneHunters/ National Hurricane Center, to see data collected by the Hurricane Hunters. www.nhc.noaa.gov/ Justin Kibbey www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Storm_pages/…F(DavidHall).jpg

Today, DesignSafe Radio host Dan Zehner talks with Joe Fargione, science director with The Nature Conservancy. The largest non-governmental organization in the world, The Nature Conservancy is also one of the first land trusts. Fargione explains how, by purchasing land in need of protection, the group saves natural environments with a non-confrontational approach. The group is also active in protecting oceans and freshwater areas. As a researcher with TNC, Fargione focuses on zero-carbon energy release as a way to protect against global warming. He explains why preventing a two-degree temperature rise is so important. Fargione discusses the science behind research projects that keep carbon in the earth – for example protecting peat-based wetlands that, if drained, would emit carbon into the atmosphere. He and his diverse collaborators focus on natural methods of preventing climate change, often using remote sensing to analyze land characteristics and compare distributions, for example, of forests. He helps land owners and managers keep carbon emissions low. Tidal wetlands, he explains, are important to preserve because salt water, unlike encroaching freshwater, has no methane emissions. Similarly, for farmers, cover crops help keep carbon in the soil – and can also increase yields and retain nutrients. Fargione describes a successful project with the Soil Health Partnership and corn growers. Fargione says that efforts to retain carbon in the soil and water helps local environments, land owners and farmers, and helps keep global temperatures from rising. Follow TNC’s Cool Green Science blog for more stories about conservation science.

Episode 25 World's Worst Weather On Mount Washington by Natural Hazards Engineering Research Infrastructure

Episode 24 Tsunami Resistant Evacuation Structures by Natural Hazards Engineering Research Infrastructure

Episode 23 The Life Of A Scientist by Natural Hazards Engineering Research Infrastructure

Episode 22 Ski Patrol And Meteorology by Natural Hazards Engineering Research Infrastructure

On this week’s episode, Dan Zehner interviews an expert on oceans and ocean storms. Dr. Philip Orton studies ocean physics and evaluates coastal problems, such as storm surge, at the Stevens Institute of Technology. Growing up on Lake St. Clair in Michigan, Orton developed an affinity for water early on. Perhaps it was surfing on those stormy lake waves that got him interested in studying storms and thinking like an oceanographer. As an undergraduate at the University of Michigan, he majored in physical oceanography, an offshoot of engineering. His parents, cancer researchers, were role models – scientists who wanted to help people. “Storms were always underneath it all,” he says. Orton completed his postdoc at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, which became his research home. At SIT, he studies ocean and atmospheric interactions -- and climate, with a focus on sea level rise. He works with influential researchers developing modeling systems in ocean science. Hurricanes Irene and Sandy Orton talks about his trial-by-fire during Hurricane Irene, when he was one of the primary scientists providing public forecasts -- on his blog and on local television. That experience helped provide similar services during hurricane Sandy, especially providing real-time instruction about storm surges for the individuals living in the affected areas. He describes working with multidisciplinary teams to solve the post-storm problems in the New York City area, including brainstorming with a variety of specialists (teachers, public policy experts, engineers) to design resilient coastal community. In particular he talks about a project to rebuild the Hudson Bay oyster beds, which will serve as a living breakwater to protect Staten Island (http://www.silive.com/news/2014/06/60_million_living_oyster_reef.html). Phase 1 of the project involves creating a scale model. He and Dan discussed the possibility of using the Oregon State University wave tank facility, a NHERI experimental site, for testing the model oyster bed. Orton details his work with designers, including artists, who have influenced his thinking about what a resilient coastline might look like. He also discusses the complexity of solving the problem of sea level rise and storm surge. For example, he says, understanding human behavior crucial. Many residents in the coastal area do not understand tides and do not know how to swim. And there is terminology to learn. What does it mean to a homeowner if he’s facing a 6-to-11 foot storm surge? Orton talks about improvements in forecasting since hurricane Sandy, which help people better understand the actual impact of a storm. He discusses the importance of probabilistic data, which you obtain by running the model for 100 different forecasts, representing a range of different weather conditions. The results can tell you what the median flood height might be. At the Stevens institute, Orton and his colleagues provide probabilistic forecasts and data on flood hazards in the NYC area, including near worst case scenarios, which are crucial for decision-making.