Reconstruction of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina: A research perspective

Abstract

Four propositions drawn from 60 years of natural hazard and reconstruction research provide a comparative and historical perspective on the reconstruction of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Decisions taken over its 288-year history that have made New Orleans so vulnerable to Katrina reflect a long-term pattern of societal response to hazard events-reducing consequences to relatively frequent events, and increasing vulnerability to very large and rare events. Thus Katrina's consequences for New Orleans were truly catastrophic-accounting for most of the estimated 1,570 deaths of Louisiana residents and $40 -50 billion in monetary losses. A comparative sequence and timing of recovery provides a calendar of historical experience against which to gauge progress in reconstruction. Using this calendar, the emergency postdisaster period appears to be longer in duration than that of any other studied disaster. The restoration period, the time taken to restore urban services for the smaller population, is in keeping with or ahead of historical experience. The effort to reconstruct the physical environment and urban infrastructure is likely to take 8 -11 years. Conflicting policy goals for reconstruction of rapid recovery, safety, betterment, and equity are already evident. Actions taken demonstrate the rush to rebuild the familiar in contrast to planning efforts that emphasize betterment. Because disasters tend to accelerate existing economic, social, and political trends, the large losses in housing, population, and employment after Katrina are likely to persist and, at best, only partly recover. However, the possibility of breaking free of this gloomy trajectory is feasible and has some historical precedent.

Urban Transitions: On Urban Resilience and Human-Dominated Ecosystems

“…After achieving its peak urban population in the early 1960s, during the 40 years before Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans was experiencing trends in multiple slow variable indicators that, in combination, worked to make the city increasingly vulnerable; rising seas, a compacting deltaic landscape, population decline, suburban sprawl in areas below sea level, coastal wetland loss, economic decline, and low maintenance of levee systems (Campanella et al 2004;Kates et al 2006). In terms of most of these indicators-that were well known at the time (Westrum 2006)-New Orleans was heading toward crucial thresholds, but Hurricane Katrina provided a shock to the New Orleans urban social-ecological system that pushed the system state half a century into what its future would have been had the hurricane, or a similar shock, not struck the city during that period (Fig.…”

Debates—Perspectives on socio‐hydrology: Capturing feedbacks between physical and social processes

“…An example is the case of New Orleans, where the process of building and raising levees has led to a shift from frequent, small flooding to rare, but catastrophic disasters [Kates et al, 2006]. More examples of levee effect have been described by the literature [Kates et al, 2006;de Moel et al, 2011;Ludy and Kondolf, 2012;IPCC 2012;Bohensky and Leitch, 2014;Di Baldassarre et al, 2013a] and are summarized in Figure 1.…”

“…There is empirical evidence that flood control structures tend to promote an increase in the vulnerability (including exposure) of societies and, paradoxically, this often results in increasing flood risk [Burton and Cutter, 2008;Ludy and Kondolf, 2012]. An example is the case of New Orleans, where the process of building and raising levees has led to a shift from frequent, small flooding to rare, but catastrophic disasters [Kates et al, 2006]. More examples of levee effect have been described by the literature [Kates et al, 2006;de Moel et al, 2011;Ludy and Kondolf, 2012;IPCC 2012;Bohensky and Leitch, 2014;Di Baldassarre et al, 2013a] and are summarized in Figure 1.…”

A comprehensive review of climate adaptation in the United States: more than before, but less than needed

“…Research is also needed to better understand how certain underrepresented and highly vulnerable groups (e.g., tribes, inner city poor, rural communities) can be supported in reducing vulnerability and building adaptive capacity (Dow et al 2006; Intertribal Climate Change Working Group 2009; Kates et al 2006;Thomas and Twyman 2006). Research on policy processes, governance, and institutions in the United States to date has been understudied and underappreciated (Eakin and Patt 2011).…”