United States Virgin Islands after Disaster: Achieving Sustainable Development through Emergency Management

Problem Statement 

Two years ago, two strong category five hurricanes hit and devastated the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). Since then, the island has invested billions of dollars in boosting recovery. Federal agencies themselves have spent more than 2 billion dollars to fix the damage caused by Irma and Maria. Federal agencies have assisted in the form of FEMA grants by the U.S. Small Business Administration and claims made by the National Flood Insurance Program. Other funds went towards restoring power, communication, rebuilding destroyed schools, fixing infrastructure, provision of medical equipment, housing survivors, and clearing hazardous materials. Despite the massive investment in emergency management, development remains anemic because the funds have not fixed all the damage caused by the hurricanes. It might take longer to fix the issue considering the displacement of people, resources, and capital that took place (Chang, Wilkinson, Seville & Potangaroa, 2010). The biggest question is how to achieve sustainable development through emergency management. Sustainable development is the kind of development that will persist or outlive the initial funding for emergency management. Given the location of the island in a region frequently hit by hurricanes and tropical storms, there is a likelihood of another disaster in the future (Chang, Wilkinson, Brunsdon, Seville & Potangaroa, 2011). Emergency management should not just address poverty among the victims, but also strengthen communities against future disasters by making them more resilient. 

Purpose 

The purpose of this study is to improve the understanding of the process by which USVI can enhance sustainable development via emergency management. Disasters undermine sustainable development (Guarnacci, 2012). In the case of hurricanes or tropical storms, they destroy infrastructures such as clinics, schools, hospitals, utilities, roads, markets, and other social and economic infrastructure, in addition to ruining the natural environment itself (Birkmann & Teichman, 2010). The losses ruin the lives of people, cutting off access to basic things such as health and education. The secondary impact of those losses is the GDP, balance of payment, and even budget deficits. Econometric analysis suggests that communities hit by hurricanes, tsunamis, tropical storms, and similar disasters often affect 1% of GDP and growth slows by as much as 0.3 percentage points, over a decade (Zhang, Lindell & Prater, 2008). Among the poor, they find it harder to rebuild their lives, homes, businesses, or replace other assets lost during the disaster. In future disasters, communities that have not recovered fully are prone to more considerable damage in future disasters (Zhang, Lindell & Prater, 2008). To address this gap, the approach will use a qualitative study. The study will use assessments of the quality of problem statements in conjunction with the internet to develop an understanding of how emergency management can lead to sustainable development. 

Significance 

The study is significant because it will bridge the gap in understanding how emergency management can translate into sustainable development. This research addresses a considerable event considering that two years after the disaster, many homes are still uninhabitable. Also, researchers have found that people who sustained significant damages continue to struggle or show poor mental health (Kelman Gaillard & Mercer, 2015). With so many displaced communities, school-going children had to adjust to chaotic schedules where schools had to host more students than resources available can handle. Under those conditions, some children could not cope, leading to poor mental health or behavioral problems. The disaster caused displacement and the cost of food and even fixing roots and other damages increased (Aitsi-Selmi, Egawa, Sasaki, Wannous & Murray, 2015). The increase in the expenses increased hardships, creating conditions for stress. The communities on the island are facing problems despite the vast investment in helping the island recover. What is evident is that the enormous investments in emergency management have not translated into sustainable development (Haigh & Amaratunga, 2010). However, for the community to grow resilience against future disasters, it is vital to bring emergency management into sustainable development. This study is relevant because it addresses an important issue facing USVI. 

Background 

Selected articles relating to achieving sustainable development through emergency management has been described here. 

Aitsi-Selmi, Egawa, Sasaki, Wannous & Murray (2015) used Sendai framework to explore how risk reduction could improve commitment to resilience against disasters such as the one that affected USVI. 

Birkmann & Teichman (2010) noted that climate change is increasing the risk of disasters in many communities around the world. The author proposes risk reduction as a measure to promote sustainable development after the occurrence of a disaster. 

Chang, Wilkinson, Seville & Potangaroa (2010) argued that the reconstruction should focus on making communities resilience after a disaster. They discussed strategies for raising resources for achieving that objective. 

Chang, Wilkinson, Potangaroa & Seville (2011) found that post-disaster reconstruction is costly. However, with the donor's funds, it is possible to rebuild, but procurement presents certain constraints and challenges that must be addressed. 

Chang, Wilkinson, Brunsdon, Seville & Potangaroa (2011) argues that reconstruction is an integral part of emergency management. The solution is the use of an integrated approach to resource management. 

Ganapati & Ganapati (2008) found that participatory planning is critical in helping communities dealing with the aftermath of disasters. If funders such as the government and donors avail reconstruction funds, it is essential to include the community in reconstruction efforts to ensure that funds for the projects most deserving and likely to leave an impact on the people. 

Guarnacci (2012) found that reconstruction also introduces governance issues. Citing the case of Indonesia, the author suggests that the government and communities should adhere to participatory governance mechanism to increase the chances of sustainable recovery. 

Haigh & Amaratunga (2010) reviewed the disciplines in the society that increases the chances of the resilience against disasters in the community. 

Kelman Gaillard & Mercer (2015) notes that climate change has a role in creating risk for the disaster. The authors propose that other than resilience and other risk mitigation, addressing climate change can help better address the issue. 

Levy & Gopalakrishnan (2010) used the 2010 Gulf of Mexico deep horizon oil spill to propose a new model for ecological sustainability to promote resilience among affected communities. 

López-Marrero & Tschakert (2011) found it possible to build sustainable communities among flood-hit areas but using simple strategies. 

Zhang Lindell & Prater (2008) that communities are vulnerable to environmental disasters; hence, the need to invest in them to accelerate recovery. 

Framework 

The theoretical base for this study is the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR). The framework is the first global framework for providing coherence in response to health, development, and climate change (Levy & Gopalakrishnan, 2010). The framework built on an earlier framework known as the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015. The framework is a response to the need for better disaster risk reduction (DRR). According to the framework, disaster is mostly not due to the hazard, but vulnerability, exposure, ability to anticipate, response, and recovery from its effects (Aitsi-Selmi, Egawa, Sasaki, Wannous & Murray, 2015). Therefore, recent disasters are complex, but the solution to a proper response to recover and attain sustainable development is due to the appropriate response (Chang, Wilkinson, Potangaroa & Seville, 2011). The framework provides insight into practical applications in delivering emergency management for sustainable development. 

Research Questions 

Qualitative: For communities affected by hurricanes in USVI, what themes emerge from their stories on recovery efforts from a personal perspective 

Quantitative: Based on the objective rating, are there significant differences evident in the overall quality of the distribution of funds for emergency response to promote sustainable development in the USVI 

Nature of the Study 

The study will use a mixed method with qualitative focus. The method is ideal given the desire to understand the nature and progress of the recovery in communities affected by the disaster (López-Marrero & Tschakert, 2011). The approach is consistent to understand how emergency management could lead to sustainable development in the USVI (Ganapati & Ganapati, 2008). The focus, when examined from the perspective of the Sendai framework, can provide valuable information about the approach to recovery efforts taken by various governmental and non-governmental agencies. Data from organizations providing funding can play a critical role in providing information for quantitative analysis. 

Possible Types and Sources of Data 

Interviews with members of the communities as primary data 

Another source of data is secondary sources, which details the experiences of the affected communities. The sources could be videos posted online, magazines, newspaper articles, documentaries, and similar sources. 

The study will also use government statistics and sources relating to funding and other forms of support provided to the affected communities. 

Data from donors and private organizations that provided and continues to assist USVI. 

Peer-reviewed journal articles as well as books as tertiary sources of data. 

References 

Aitsi-Selmi, A., Egawa, S., Sasaki, H., Wannous, C., & Murray, V. (2015). The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: Renewing the Global Commitment to People’s Resilience, Health, and Well-being. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6 (2), 164-176. doi:10.1007/s13753-015-0050-9 

Birkmann, J., & Teichman, K. V. (2010). Integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: Key challenges—scales, knowledge, and norms. Sustainability Science, 5 (2), 171-184. doi:10.1007/s11625-010-0108-y 

Chang, Y., Wilkinson, S., Seville, E., & Potangaroa, R. (2010). Resourcing for a resilient post ‐ disaster reconstruction environment. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 1 (1), 65-83. doi:10.1108/17595901011026481 

Chang, Y., Wilkinson, S., Brunsdon, D., Seville, E., & Potangaroa, R. (2011). An integrated approach: Managing resources for post-disaster reconstruction. Disasters, 35 (4), 739-765. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7717.2011.01240.x 

Chang, Y., Wilkinson, S., Potangaroa, R., & Seville, E. (2011). Donor-driven resource procurement for post-disaster reconstruction: Constraints and actions. Habitat International, 35 (2), 199-205. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.08.003 

Ganapati, N. E., & Ganapati, S. (2008). Enabling Participatory Planning After Disasters: A Case Study of the World Banks Housing Reconstruction in Turkey. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75 (1), 41-59. doi:10.1080/01944360802546254 

Guarnacci, U. (2012). Governance for sustainable reconstruction after disasters: Lessons from Nias, Indonesia. Environmental Development, 2 , 73-85. doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2012.03.010 

Haigh, R., & Amaratunga, D. (2010). An integrative review of the built environment disciplines role in the development of societys resilience to disasters. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 1 (1), 11-24. doi:10.1108/17595901011026454 

Kelman, I., Gaillard, J. C., & Mercer, J. (2015). Climate Change’s Role in Disaster Risk Reduction’s Future: Beyond Vulnerability and Resilience. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6 (1), 21-27. doi:10.1007/s13753-015-0038-5 

Levy, J. K., & Gopalakrishnan, C. (2010). Promoting Ecological Sustainability and Community Resilience in the US Gulf Coast after the 2010Deepwater HorizonOil Spill. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 2 (3), 297-315. doi:10.1080/19390459.2010.500462 

López-Marrero, T., & Tschakert, P. (2011). From theory to practice: Building more resilient communities in flood-prone areas. Environment and Urbanization, 23 (1), 229-249. doi:10.1177/0956247810396055 

Zhang, Y., Lindell, M. K., & Prater, C. S. (2008). Vulnerability of community businesses to environmental disasters. Disasters, 33 (1), 38-57. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7717.2008.01061.x