Dr. Robert B. Olshansky is professor of urban and regional planning at Illinois. His teaching and research cover land use and environmental planning, with an emphasis on planning for natural hazards.  He has published extensively on post-disaster recovery planning, planning and policy for earthquake risks, and environmental impact assessment. Recently, Professor Olshansky has studied recovery after several major earthquakes, most notably the Kobe, Japan earthquake of 1995. He spent the 2004-2005 academic year studying this topic as a Visiting Professor at Kyoto University, Disaster Prevention Research Institute. Since September 2005, he has been closely monitoring the post-Katrina planning process in New Orleans. Here, in the wake of the disastrous cyclone which struck Burma and the massive earthquake in central China, he discusses the obstacles for recovery and how governments can better prepare for such events.

The earthquake in the Sichuan Province of China has left crumbled buildings and demolished schools. Considering the region is in an area of fairly high seismic activity, what steps could/should the government have taken to prepare their cities for such a high-magnitude earthquake?

Although we don’t know when great earthquakes will strike, we do know where they occur.  Because earthquakes, unlike hurricanes, occur with no warning, we need to ensure that built environments in earthquake-prone regions areas as safe as possible for an earthquake that can strike at any moment.  The techniques for constructing new buildings so that they will not collapse are well-known and not unduly costly. The more difficult problem is what to do with older buildings. The most dangerous are large buildings that might have been built quickly, a few decades ago, or with inadequate attention to seismic safety. Of these buildings, it is widely known that older schools and hospitals must be given priority for replacement or repair.  We learn these lessons over and over again. China cannot fix all earthquake-prone buildings, but the nation would be wise to initiate a program aimed at eventually strengthening or replacing all schools and hospitals commensurate with the seismicity of their location. And, of course, all new buildings—especially schools and hospitals—must be built to the highest seismic standards.

Illinois was struck by its first measurable earthquake in two decades in March. How would the planning and preparation in Illinois differ from that of China or Kobe, Japan?

The philosophy is the same, although the seismic hazard is somewhat lower. In the U.S., we have a model seismic building code that requires seismic-resistant construction commensurate with the local earthquake hazard. Most larger towns in Illinois use this code; most smaller towns and unincorporated areas do not.  In my opinion, communities in southern Illinois should at least inventory all their larger buildings and develop a strategy for seismic safety. This should include, at minimum, a plan for fixing all substandard school and hospital buildings as soon as possible, based on available funding. We performed such an analysis for Carbondale a few years ago, and were pleased to find that the hospitals and schools were well aware of their risk and had strategies for addressing it. This is not to say that all buildings must be strengthened immediately, but it is irresponsible not to have a long-term plan for eventually creating a seismically-safe community.

Cyclone Nargis, which struck Burma last week, made landfall near the Irrawaddy River delta, much like Hurricane Katrina hit the Mississippi River delta. Therefore, it is easy to draw a parallel between the two.  What factors do you believe impacted the far more significant loss of life and destruction in Burma compared to New Orleans?

Not having been to Burma, I can only speculate. Disasters, of course, are as much about the social and economic vulnerability of populations as they are about the natural phenomena that trigger them.  I assume that the Irrawaddy delta is populated with villagers that survive by fishing the rich coastal waters.  This is not unlike the Cajuns who make their homes in the bayous of southern Louisiana.  In the face of a large storm surge, there is very little that can be done to cost-effectively protect all structures, and I have seen the effects of this in southern Louisiana.  But Louisiana had some structures that were elevated and strengthened, unlike in Myanmar. More significantly, Louisiana has communication systems, land transportation systems, and a socioeconomic and political system that respects the lives of the people living in the bayous. This means that resources are spent in warning and attempting to evacuate as many people as possible to safer locations. My guess is that this would be extremely difficult to accomplish in Myanmar. But I would also think that it would be possible to construct a safe building in each village and to develop a system (combining electronic and personal communication) of warning residents when cyclones approach.  It would be difficult to protect everyone, but I think it would not be that difficult to create a system that would greatly reduce the loss of life in the next such cyclone.  Regarding political systems, although I admit that I don’t know that much about Myanmar, the current news reports are troubling in that they suggest that the leaders of Myanmar are more concerned with their hold on power than they are in facilitating humanitarian aid to their citizens. This shows how political systems alone can often create or exacerbate disasters.

You have witnessed the aftermath of different natural disasters around the world. What obstacles do Burma and China face as they look to rebuild buildings and lives? What recommendations would you make to their governments if asked?

Rebuilding depends heavily on context and on the political environment. But there are some common features.  First, they need to assess the damage: to buildings, infrastructure, lives, economies, communities.   Second, they need to provide for temporary housing and livelihood support of victims. Third, they need to identify sources of funds. Post-disaster recovery always requires large quantities of funding from outside the stricken area. Fourth, they need to create a management system for rebuilding. This could be simultaneous with identifying funding sources (sometimes the management system is a good way of attracting funds). Such a system would involve a mechanism for routing funds to where they are needed, for providing information on reconstruction needs, and for coordinating the work of agencies. The best way to accomplish this is by coordinating and informing the work of many agencies (governmental, private donors, NGOs), rather than creating a top-down hierarchy. I suspect, however, that both of these governments prefer the latter, which is unfortunate. Similarly, it is vital to involve the victims in making decisions about the reconstruction.   In all cases, the most important things are to rebuild homes and economies as quickly as possible, and as quickly as the victims can tolerate (if it is too hasty, or misdirected, they will say so). Usually, infrastructure repair (roads, communication, water, power) is the first priority.