analysis and comparison of geohazard management in · pdf fileanalysis and comparison of...
TRANSCRIPT
Kurt Swalander, University of Southern California, CREATE, Applied Research in Environmental Science, UNC-EC; Lloyd Mitchell Ph.D., MPH, MS, RS, University of North Carolina: Elizabeth City St. Univ., USC Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terror Events and Anne Garland
Ph.D., R.P.A.; University of Maryland, USC Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terror Events, Working Together For A Safer Tomorrow; Brittany Friend, Elizabeth City
State University, USDHS CREATE, Working Together for a Safer Tomorrow; William Baker, Elizabeth City State University
Analysis and Comparison of Geohazard Management in Diverse Geographic
Locations Inhabited by Indigenous Communities
ABSTRACT This study is designed to assist leaders in and near indigenous communities through the fusion
of knowledge of relationships between geological hazards and politico-cultural factors,
especially in local decision making processes related to geohazard risks. People of tribally
Inclusive Geographic Areas (TIGA) from five international geographic locations were selected: 1)
Inupiat: Alaska’s North Slope, 2) Aborigines: Australia 3) Maori: New Zealand 4) American Indian
Tribes, USA, and 5) Wum, Nyos: Africa’s Rift Valley. Constructed weighted matrices were utilized
to rank geohazard risks. Three politico-cultural factors reviewed and analyzed: 1) Concept of
tribal sovereignty in government to government relationships, 2) Blood Quantum enrollment
(USA), and 3) politico-economic relationship with local, federal governments. Six geologic
hazards in TIGA were reviewed: 1) Tsunami and Ivu (North Slope), 2) Volcanic Eruptive Events
and Lahars, 3) Floods, 4) Geomagnetism, 5) Earthquakes, and 6) Landslides, roadside, and
roadbed soils degradation. Identification of common politico-cultural factors of indigenous
communities related to geohazard risk management were analyzed. Results to date indicate that
geomagnetic events are the least managed but pose primarily a temporary economic risk, and
where applicable, tsunami hazards and earthquakes pose the greatest risk. Results of data
collected from field site visits indicate, a.) Responses to geological disasters in TIGA worldwide
are inconsistent and significantly influenced by tribal politico-cultural factors, and b.) In the
United States, irresponsible sovereignty efforts actually increase geohazard risks, thereby not
always safeguarding all TIGA residents and guests. Future work will refine and add data across
TIGA worldwide.
Data Review:
All data review extracted information related to taxation,
politico-cultural influences, and geohazards management
I. Existing Documents
* U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
* U.S. Geological Survey
* Federal Emergency Management Agency
* National Geomagnetism Program
II. Field data collected from field site visits
*18 American Indian Tribal Communities
* Geological, Political, Economic
III. Field data from recent related studies
* On site TIGA, International field visits
Critical And Urgent Recommendations
1. Promote worldwide geohazard management by indigenous peoples
2. Provide assurance of equitable financial support distribution
3. Advocate nationally geohazard management for all
4. Acceptance of cultural sensitivity by federal government
5. Hold worldwide indigenous population geohazard management conference
Challenge Statement
To find conclusive information/data
sufficiently able to assist leaders
working with sovereign nations to
keep all people on Indigenous lands
safe as possible in the event of a
geologic disaster on tribal territory.
Selected References 1. Cascades Volcanic Observatory: Various sources
2. Casinos: native American Tribal Casinos- The Story of Native AmericanCasinosintwoStates. "http://www.libraryindex.comhttp://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1586/Casinos-Native-American-Tribal-Casinos- STORY-NATIVE-AMERICAN-CASINOS-IN-TWO-STATES.html (accessed September 18, 2011).
3. "Compact." http://www.merriam-webster.com/; http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/compact?show=3&t=1316018354(accessed September 14, 2011).
4. NOAA Weather. Spaceweather.com sponsored by NOAA.gov
5. Glassberg, David. “American Environmental History.” Lecture, University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA, Spring 2010.
6. Minnesota Indian Gaming Association. "Industry Overview.www.indiangaming.com.http://www.indiangaming.com/industry/ (accessed September 14, 2011).
7. “Simple outline world map.” http://www.freeworldmaps.net/printable/index.html (31 October 2012)
8. National Indian Gaming Commission. "Growth in Gaming Revenues. “http://www.nigc.gov;http://www.nigc.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ta0m2dzcB3k%3d& tabid=67 (accessed Sep 28, 2011).
9. U.S. Census Bureau. "2010 Census Data. http://2010.census.gov/2010census/.http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/ (accessed September14, 2011).
10. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency: Various Documents
11. Willman, Elaine (2005) Going To Pieces, Equilocus, LLC
12. Winston, Oretha. "Cherokee 2,800 Blacks From Tribe."http://elev8.com. http://elev8.com/news/orethawinston/cheokee -indians-banish-2800-blacks-from-tribe/ (accessed September 18,2011).
Acknowledgements Dr. Lloyd Mitchell, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, CREATE; Elizabeth City State University
Dr. Anne Garland, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, CREATE; University of Maryland
William Baker, Elizabeth City State University
Jeremiah Lancaster, U.S. Army National Guard; Applied Research in Environmental Science
Methodology 1. Review Qualitative Data
2. Identify indigenous territory in five geographic areas (Table 1)
3. Review specific geohazards within chosen locations
4. Discern sovereign status of indigenous populations (Table 2)
5. Segregate indigenous concepts of sovereignty (Table 2)
6. Identify politico-cultural factors within indigenous areas (Table3)
7. Categorize qualitative data (Table 3)
8. Rate politico-cultural factor impact on geohazard mgmt (Table 4)
9. Apply driving quantitative model (Model)
10. Create quantitative table.
Driving Model (Politico-cultural
factors)
Sovereignty vs. Geohazard Management
Ask Me!
Blood Quantum
Quantitative Model
x = ( population self resilience + existing agreements with other gov'ts - (probability of a
disaster occurring + distance of disaster from indigenous population) ) / (intensity of disaster)
Table 4. Factor Impact on Geo Hazard Risk Management: A Summary Rating
Indigenous
Population
Jurisdictional Sovereignty Blood Quantum,
Recognized Membership
Politico-economic Relationships:
Local and National Governments
1 Inupiat
Tsunami, Ivu
Volcanics
Floods
Geomagnetism
Earthquakes
Slides
2 Aborigines
Tsunami, Ivu
Volcanics
Floods
Geomagnetism ----------
Earthquakes
Slides
3 Maori
Tsunami, Ivu
Volcanics
Floods
Geomagnetism
Earthquakes
Slides
4 American Indians
Tsunami, Ivu
Volcanics
Floods
Geomagnetism
Earthquakes
Slides
5 Wum & Nyos
Tsunami, Ivu -------------- -------------- --------------
Volcanics
Floods
Geomagnetism
Earthquakes
Slides
Table 3. Politico Cultural Factor Summary Specific for Geological Hazard Disasters
Indigenous
Population
\/
Concept of Sovereignty in
Government to Government
Relationships
Blood Quantum or Recognized
Membership Criteria
Politico-economic Relationships: Local,
National Governments
1 Inupiat
Self-governance on tribal land:
*Village responds as village only
*TIGA collaboration (NSB, ANSCA)
*Request Fed, St, local assistance
*Contract out services
*Other, i.e. Arctic circumpolar pops
*All AI, BQ 25% + -, Fed support eligible
as U.S. citizen, i.e. FEMA loans, grants
*Federal: Villages eligible for separate
funding for geohazard planning
based upon # of enrolled at 25% + BQ
*State: Support varies per village, person
*Village: Support members via village gov
*Money allocated by Federal government to
villages for geohazard management.
*Villages contract out 1st responders, planners
*Binding relationship to state, Fed government
*Corporations support by Feds, State
*Other
2 Aborigines * Specified rights per Australian gov.
* Sovereign land areas recognized
* Recognized by governments,
but determined by Aboriginal clan or groups
*Australian gov. provides support to Aborigine
groups for geohazard management, but it is
integrated into local, regional, national plans.
*Cultural sensitivity in disaster discussion
3 Maori Land via Treaty of Waitangi.
Cultural Rights.
NZ gov. protects all citizens
New: Maori self-education
*Defined as “Anyone with Maori Descent.”
*All Maori included in geohazard mgmt. plans
*Reserved Maori Parliament seats;
*Access to funds
*Limited local representation
*Cultural sensitivity in disaster discussion
4 American
Indians
Self-governance on tribal land:
*Tribe responds as nation only
*TIGA gov collaboration
*Request Fed, St, local assistance
*Contract out services
*Other
*All AI, BQ 25% + -, Fed support eligible
as U.S. citizen, i.e. FEMA loans, grants
*Federal: Tribes eligible for separate
funding for geohazard planning
based upon # of enrolled at 25% + BQ
*State: Support varies per tribe, person
*Tribe: Support members via nation’s gov
*Money allocated by Federal government to
tribes for geohazard management.
*Contract out first responders, planners.
*Binding relationship to state, Fed government
*Other
5 Wum and Nyos Self- governing culturally *Born into tribe.
*No BQ requirement.
*Does not exist.
*Wum, Nyos recognized by African govs.
*Do not have strong G2G binding relationships
Table 2. Politico-Cultural Factor Review
Concept of Sovereignty in
Government to Government
(G2G) Relationships
Blood Quantum or
Recognized Membership Criteria
Politico-economic Relationships: Local,
National Governments
* Sovereignty status allows
Indigenous-led approach to
geohazard management
* Sovereignty status increases
expected level of responsibility
geohazard mgmt by all in TIGA
$ per person: management grants
$ per person: preparation, planning
$ per person: response costs
Support from members
Per person responsibilities
* TIGA collaboration strength
* Seek support or contribute support
* Ability to contract out
* National support in disaster event
* FEMA
* DHS
Table 1. Study Target Groups and Target Locations
Indigenous Population Location
1 Inupiat Alaska’s North Slope
2 Aborigines Australia
3 Maori New Zealand
4 American Indians Continental USA
5 Wum and Nyos African Rift Valley
Inupiat
American Indians
Wum and Nyos
Aborigine
Maori
Future Plans
1) Expand and share personal knowledge
2) Engage in field visits to both Africa and Australia
3) Incorporate quantitative data
4) Create a more precise plan of action for disaster preparation
SPACE WEATHER
NOAA Forecasts
Geomagnetic Storms: Probabilities for significant disturbances in Earth's magnetic field are given for three activity levels: active, Updated at: 2012 Oct 31 2200 UTC
FLARE 0-24 hr 24-48 hr
CLASS M 05 % 05 %
CLASS X 01 % 01 % Mid-Latitudes 0-24 hr 24-48 hr
ACTIVE 45 % 20 %
MINOR 15 % 10 %
SEVERE 01 % 01 % High-Latitudes 0-24 hr 24-48 hr
ACTIVE 10 % 15 %
MINOR 30 % 25 %
SEVERE 60 % 25 %
Geographic Locations
KEY
Status at Most Recent Review
Negative to geohazard management. Immediate
effort to use factor in a positive manner is
suggested
Some aspects of factor are contributing to
potentially negative geohazard management.
Revision steps needed ASAP.
Factor is not a negative contributor, but
improvements can be made to assure highest
level geohazard management.
Factor contributes to overall positive geohazard
management.
Practices should be shared with other
indigenous populations.
Non-Applicable, Limited Data “Culture and sovereignty are two of the most powerful tools indigenous people have
and we can use them to manage geohazards for all people on our lands”
Dr. Lloyd Mitchell, (Oneida) USDHS CREATE.