Hurricane Katrina and the Paradoxes of Government Disaster Policy¶
Burby, R. J. (2006). Hurricane Katrina and the Paradoxes of Government Disaster Policy: Bringing About Wise Governmental Decisions for Hazardous Areas. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604(1), 171-191.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Benign-Sampling Safety Drift
- The hundred-year flood does not come for thirty years, so the dry sample is read as safety; development fills the floodplain, the levee is not raised, deferred maintenance is accepted because "it held last year"
This sourceThe "safe development paradox": levees and dry decades read as safety license floodplain encroachment and deferred maintenance until a rare high-water event finds the spent margin.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The abstract supplies Burby's 'safe development paradox' — safety measures raising catastrophic-loss potential — but not the claim's dry-decade, levee-maintenance and floodplain-encroachment mechanism.
“The safe development paradox is that in trying to make hazardous areas safer, the federal government in fact substantially increased the potential for catastrophic property damages and economic loss.”
- The hundred-year flood does not come for thirty years, so the dry sample is read as safety; development fills the floodplain, the levee is not raised, deferred maintenance is accepted because "it held last year"
Mechanisms¶
- Pressure-Absorption Redesign Workshop
- Each higher wall protected the town behind it but sent a sharper flood peak downstream — and, through the levee effect, drew more building into the "safe" floodplain
This sourceExplains the safe-development paradox: protection policies can promote development in hazardous protected areas and thereby increase catastrophic loss potential.
- Each higher wall protected the town behind it but sent a sharper flood peak downstream — and, through the levee effect, drew more building into the "safe" floodplain
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 2 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:ab830cffc5f8 · see in the full table