By: Elliot Hangos
The role technology can play in assisting disaster sites is astronomical, especially when considering the millions of lives impacted by the 2,018 natural disasters since 2010. Thus, new technology efforts have been made in recent years to better address disaster relief efforts, such as: the use of robots and drones, the implementation of projects to maintain communication in earthquake sites, and the NASA Finder.
Along with the increased role technology has played in disaster relief and the importance of improving safety to limit casualties, it is necessary to consider the legal resolutions we have set in place and whether they are easily transferable to various types of disasters. Further, because of the increased availability of technology in such situations, it is essential that our laws are able to accurately assess complex disasters, which often have multiple parties involved. Technological advancement allows us to accurately predict disasters more quickly, and with more accuracy of their severity than ever before. Thus, although it makes for an eye-catching headline to see drones saving children from a building seconds from collapsing, it is distracting because our resources are misappropriated. A majority of resources go towards disaster response and recovery, when research shows that disaster mitigation, preparedness, and impact-reduction is crucial in ultimately reaching the same goal: saving the most lives, while minimizing the injuries, financial losses, business activities, and damage to the surrounding infrastructure.
AI and technological advancement’s role in disaster risk reduction (“DRR”) is becoming more prevalent. In their simplest form, AI and machine learning (“ML”) technologies use satellites and drones that collect meteorological, seismic, and any other relevant data through Earth’s orbit, to forecast hazard maps. AI and ML models are applied throughout the world to better forecast, monitor, and detect vulnerable areas. Developing on-site observation networks across the country, powered by human intelligence, is costly, among other challenges when compared to AI. For example, Georgia’s complex typography makes it particularly challenging to forecast hail and windstorms, but by taking advantage of AI and ML, experts are able to produce hazard maps more accurately.
More reactive measures of AI are also extremely helpful in disaster management and response. For example, during the Coronavirus outbreak in China, the HealthMap system, powered by AI, sent an alert about unexplained pneumonia cases before researchers detected the problem. Additionally, the increase of commercially available satellites—Airbus and Maxar—has allowed response teams to better project reconstruction plans after earthquakes, heavy rains, and wildfires. This is highlighted in Google’s most recent partnership with GiveDirectly, a nonprofit organization that facilitates sending money to people living in poverty, to help with the aftermath of Hurricane Ian. Google’s AI satellites scanned images over Florida and the Carolinas to collect information such as damaged places, number of victims, and infrastructure destruction. Then, GiveDirectly was able to offer cash assistance to approximately 3,500 residents, through a push notification on their phone. The images scanned by satellites were able to detect signs of poverty, along with sourcing information through cell phone bills and food stamp providers.
Now, let’s review the current laws’ interaction with disaster recovery and reconstruction. Federal disaster response is governed by the Stafford Disaster Relief Assistance Act (“Stafford Act”). The Stafford Act defines a “major disaster” as any natural catastrophe—including a non-exhaustive enumeration of examples—that is deemed by the President to justify focusing “the efforts and available resources of States, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damages, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby.” Historically under U.S. law, however, disaster survivors have no right to federal disaster assistance. In addition, there have been funding issues associated with the Stafford Act in disaster response and mitigation efforts. The Stafford Act’s ad hoc basis for congressional action to provide funds and other resources causes a majority of federal resources to be spent in the aftermath of disasters. This sparked the enactment of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (“DRRA”) in 2018 to acknowledge the shared responsibility in mitigating life-threatening disasters by increasing funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”).
AI and technological advancement raise several questions on addressing both its challenges and benefits in reducing disaster risks. A recent study found that the United States is more vulnerable to economic damage from disaster than most countries, citing population size and concentration of economic resources as reasons for the vulnerability. The importance of pre-disaster preparedness in overall effectiveness in limiting a disaster’s impact is not reflected through the federal disaster system’s construction and approach. Further, the Stafford Act limits, and in some cases extends, the legal pursuits made by disaster survivors due to federal disaster agencies’ immunity from liability.
These fundamental gaps in allowing individuals and communities to fully recovery after disasters were acknowledged by the amendment to the Stafford Act in 2018 to pass the DRRA. The DRRA filled the gaps left by the Stafford Act, for example, by using funds to improve the enforcement of local building codes and requiring the Federal Highway Administration to update guidance on evacuation routes. Despite such improvements, the DRRA’s accomplishments in allocating more funds to pre-disaster mitigation (“PDM”) should not undermine technology’s ability to facilitate in disaster relief. Rather, Google and GiveDirectly’s efforts, while appearing to be a more efficient way of delivering aid, causes the loss of human connection to impacted communities.
With all that being said, a life-threatening disaster is both a startling and unnerving event for not only the affected community, but for the entire country. And mind-blowing technological feats, such as satellites sending money to hurricane victims through Venmo and drones rescuing people from high-rise fires, have allowed us to mitigate the severity of such events. However, it is easy to become distracted by society’s prowess in innovation and lose sight of the up-hill battle that affected communities must face moving forward. The federal government’s ease in crowdsourcing the necessary funding in the aftermath of these events is remarkable. Yet, it should raise eyebrows that a majority of the federal resources supplement the aftermath, while emergency preparedness is the best response.
Student Bio: Elliot Hangos is a second-year law student at Suffolk University Law School. He is a staffer on the Journal of High Technology Law. Elliot received a Bachelor of Business Administration in Marketing and Sports Management from the George Washington University.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are the views of the author alone and do not represent the views of JHTL or Suffolk University Law School.
