One of the major assertions made after the March earthquake and tsunami disasters in Japan was that the incident proves we’ve reached the planning limit. While the sentiment is understandable, framing the event this way provides an inaccurate representation of the purpose of advance planning. We do not plan for the worst to happen to prevent it from happening; we plan for the worst to minimize loss when it does happen. In other words, it is not enough to calculate losses. Those losses must be measured against the alternative. As emergency managers and disaster planners, it’s very difficult to determine what that alternative might be. Reviewing incidents like Japan–as well as last year’s natural disasters in Haiti and Chile–can help planners develop a set of best practices to assist areas facing similar hazards.

Japan’s experience is proof that planning saves lives. Strict building codes implemented after the destructive 1995 Kobe earthquake did not keep buildings from toppling, but it did prevent dangerous structural collapse, the cause of most earthquake deaths. Additionally, public awareness campaigns saved countless lives in coastal areas where residents knew to rush for high ground following tremors strong enough to knock people off their feet. Much of the casualty count from the tsunami were tourists unfamiliar with evacuation procedures, elderly unable to evacuate quickly, and those in low-lying towns lacking swift access to higher ground. Chile experienced similar results due to aggressive public awareness campaigns.

The disparity of experience between Haiti and Chile further demonstrates the need for targeted infrastructure improvement. While Chile incurred double the economic cost from damages, $30-billion versus almost $14-billion, they also experienced a fraction of the casualties–577 compared to a staggering 300,000. This disparity is even more striking when factoring in the absence of a tsunami in the Haiti event.

So What Does This Mean for Those Hoping to Learn From These Events?

The importance of mitigation driven infrastructure development cannot be overemphasized. Japan and Chile had a tremendous infrastructure advantage over the economically depressed island nation of Haiti; but they also had a significant cultural advantage. There was a much higher degree of advance coordination between the government and population in these two countries that aided response and recovery efforts by training citizens to anticipate and act without government direction. In Chile, entire hospitals were evacuated in less than 20 minutes; less time than official direction would have required under perfect conditions. In Japan, miles of debris were swept away from roadways by communities before international teams even made landfall.

As the United States prepares for what many people consider an inevitable event of this scope and magnitude along the California coast, fostering this culture of proactive individual response will be one of the most vital and most challenging efforts. Planners will have to determine how to balance cultural expectations of government intervention with the reality of time resource and capability shortfalls inherent to such events.