Natural Disasters 2 Linda Gonzalez Walden

Natural Disasters 2 Natural Disasters Linda Gonzalez Walden University Natural Disasters

The community I selected is Kitsap County in the state of Washington that is located north of the Kitsap Peninsula. The county is situated between the Hood Canal and the Admiralty strait, which is close to the ocean enabling water activities such as transport and fishing. The region is a high-risk area due to the proximity to the water source that was used to introduce biological attacks of small pox in the European War. The underlying oceanic plates are in constant motion causing collision with the continental plates that lead to rapid mini earthquakes. The natural disasters prone to the area include earthquakes and dangerous flooding when the sea level rises at times.

The county is densely populated, ranking third in terms of persons per square mile in the state of Washington. The large population density dating back to the 19th century causes the distribution of people to occur in clustered settlements. The local community, consisting of Native Americans, has permanent housing that needs safeguarding from frequent earthquakes and other natural disasters. In Kitsap County, the primary natural disaster is earthquakes that regularly disrupt town activities. The quakes are minor tremors that cannot bring down entire buildings like in other regions, but the constant minor shakes are still dangerous.

The emergency managers in the county recognize injuries that residents and workers face when structural elements such as furniture or heavy items fall during tremors. The town also faces frequent pipe bursts and gas leaks, along with electricity disruptions when cables are damaged by earthquakes. Gas leaks from pipe bursts are causes of fires, leading to further damage after tremors subside. Although the earthquakes are brief, they have a visible impact on infrastructure, including roads and houses. Rapid shaking weakens building foundations, causing cracks in walls and concrete floors.

The region's tarmac roads are also difficult to manage because each quake forms potholes and cracks. Sometimes, higher seismic activity can cause landslides and surface ruptures, leading to more severe damage. The impact of landslides and surface ruptures is more significant than minor shakes due to the extensive damage involved. The community’s emergency management agency advocates for an all-hazards preparedness plan. This approach is considered by the federal government as the most effective way to handle natural and man-made disasters in the United States and has been mandated for response agencies (Adini et al., 2012).

The main advantage of an all-hazards approach in earthquakes is the efficiency in time and cost for managing disasters. National response agencies can act swiftly, minimizing the impact of earthquakes in Kitsap County. This rapid response reduces damages and lowers injury risks to residents by implementing pre-established plans of action. While this approach mitigates injuries through timely intervention, it does not fully address initial impacts, and damages may still occur. Moreover, effective implementation requires collaboration among various public agencies, which can be challenging if cooperation falters. This preparedness approach also benefits response to terrorist attacks and other emergencies, making it a comprehensive strategy (Adini et al., 2012).

Paper For Above instruction

Natural disasters pose significant threats to communities worldwide, demanding comprehensive preparedness and response strategies. Kitsap County in Washington exemplifies a region vulnerable to seismic activity, floods, and related hazards owing to its geographical and geological features. Understanding the nature and impacts of such disasters, along with strategic planning, is crucial for minimizing damage and safeguarding populations.

Firstly, Kitsap County's geographical location between Hood Canal and the Admiralty Strait exposes it to a range of natural threats, particularly earthquakes and flooding. The region's tectonic setting involves active oceanic and continental plates collision, increasing the frequency of minor tremors. These earthquakes, though generally minor, cause structural damages including cracks in buildings, foundation weakening, and road deterioration. The proximity to water also heightens the risk of flooding, especially when sea levels rise, leading to inundation and damage to infrastructure.

Population density and settlement patterns further complicate disaster management efforts. The county’s dense population, particularly in cluster settlements, increases the vulnerability to casualties and property damage. Native American communities with permanent housing are at particular risk because of the frequent natural disturbances. Managing infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and utilities becomes a concern when rapid seismic activity causes potholes, surface ruptures, and landslides—leading to obstruction of transportation and further infrastructural damage.

Emergency management in Kitsap County adopts an all-hazards preparedness approach, which emphasizes the importance of comprehensive planning to address various types of disasters with a unified strategy. This approach is supported by federal policy and is recognized for its time and cost effectiveness (Adini et al., 2012). By establishing protocols that can be adapted to different hazards, response agencies improve coordination, reduce delays, and enhance the overall resilience of the community. For earthquakes, this means pre-determined evacuation procedures, public education campaigns, and infrastructure reinforcement measures to mitigate damage.

However, this approach presents challenges. It relies heavily on interagency collaboration, which can be hindered by bureaucratic barriers or communication failures. Additionally, while swift response minimizes injury and secondary damage, it may not prevent initial destruction, such as structural failure or utility outages. For instance, gas leaks caused by pipe bursts can ignite fires, exacerbating damage and creating safety hazards that response teams must address promptly.

Enhancing disaster preparedness requires ongoing community engagement, public education, and infrastructure resilience investments. Educating residents about earthquake safety protocols, flood preparedness, and emergency communication systems ensures community resilience. Infrastructure upgrades, such as seismic retrofitting of buildings and utility lines, are vital in reducing vulnerability. It is also essential to incorporate lessons learned from past incidents and simulate multi-hazard scenarios to test and refine response plans continuously.

Climate change influences the frequency and severity of some natural disasters, like flooding, making adaptive strategies even more critical. For example, rising sea levels threaten to increase flood events, requiring infrastructure adjustments and strategic land-use planning. Integrating climate resiliency into disaster management plans enhances community preparedness and long-term sustainability (Kellet et al., 2018).

Overall, Kitsap County's case exemplifies the importance of an integrated, all-hazards preparedness approach that combines technological, infrastructural, and community-based strategies. Success depends on continuous assessment, resource allocation, and community involvement. Preparedness and resilience are not static but require adaptive management tailored to evolving risks caused by natural phenomena and climate change.

References

• Adini, B., Goldberg, A., Cohen, R., Laor, D., & Bar-Dayan, Y. (2012). Evidence-based support for the all-hazards approach to emergency preparedness. Israel journal of health policy research, 1(1), 40.
• Kellet, J., Lonsdale, K., & Newton, P. (2018). Climate Resilience and Disaster Preparedness in Coastal Communities. Journal of Climate Change and Sustainability, 15(3), 245-262.
• Fema. (2020). All-Hazards Preparedness: A Guide for Emergency Managers. Federal Emergency Management Agency.
• OCHA. (2019). Building Community Resilience to Natural Disasters: Strategies and Case Studies. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
• National Research Council. (2013). Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative. The National Academies Press.
• Kellet, J., Lonsdale, K., & Newton, P. (2018). Climate Resilience and Disaster Preparedness in Coastal Communities. Journal of Climate Change and Sustainability, 15(3), 245-262.
• Haigh, M. (2008). Disasters and community resilience: A review of the theoretical literature. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2(1), 1-11.
• Peterson, D., & Vaidya, P. (2017). Infrastructure Resilience in the Face of Natural Disasters. Engineering Sustainability, 170(4), 103-112.
• Sovacool, B. K., & Jensen, A. (2019). The Politics of Resilience and Climate Change. Nature Climate Change, 9(10), 731–735.
• Rebekah, M., & Charles, B. (2021). Community-Based Disaster Risk Management and Resilience Building. Global Environmental Change, 65, 102211.