MGT330 University of Nairobi Importance of Change Management Paper Develop an argument to your manager on the importance of change management.
Describe the role of a change manager and how it will benefit the project.
Write a 1,050- to 1,400-word paper using a minimum of two peer-reviewed sources.
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.
Submit your assignment. About the New Madrid Seismic Zone
The New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) extends 120 miles south from Charleston, Missouri, following Interstate 55
to near Marked Tree, Arkansas. The NMSZ consists of a series of large, ancient faults that are buried beneath
thick, soft sediments. These faults cross five state lines, the Mississippi River in three places and the Ohio River in
two places.
The New Madrid Seismic Zone is active and averages about 200 measured events per year (magnitude 1.0 or
greater). Tremors large enough to be felt (magnitude 2.5 – 3.0) occur annually. On average every 18 months, the
fault releases a shock of magnitude 4.0 or greater, which is capable of local minor damage. A magnitude 5.0 or
greater occurs about once per decade, can cause significant damage and be felt in several states.
The highest earthquake risk in the United States outside the West Coast is in the New Madrid Seismic Zone.
Damaging earthquakes are not as frequent as in California. But when they do occur, the destruction covers more
than 20 times the area due to the geologic differences between the two regions.
The Great New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811-12 were a series of over 2,000 seismic events, which occurred for
approximately five months, beginning December 16, 1811. Several of those earthquakes are believed to have
been magnitude 7.0 or greater. There were reports of church bells ringing in Boston and of shaking being felt as
far away as the Caribbean. The town of New Madrid was destroyed. According to the United States Geological
Survey (USGS), the earthquakes caused ground warping, sand eruptions, fissures and landslides along river
banks. They are believed to be the largest earthquakes east of the Rocky Mountains in the history of the U.S.
A damaging earthquake in the NMSZ of magnitude 6.0 or greater occurs
about once every 80 years. The last of that magnitude was a 6.6 event
in 1895 near Charleston, Missouri. The USGS reports there is a 25
percent to 40 percent chance of a similar size earthquake occurring
within 50 years. Un-reinforced masonry buildings and other structures
from Memphis to St. Louis could experience serious damage. The USGS
reports that catastrophic upheavals like those in 1811-12 could visit the
New Madrid region every 500-600 years. However, even though the
chance is remote, experts suggest there is a 7 percent to 10 percent
chance for a large earthquake similar to the 1811-12 New Madrid events
in the next 50 years.
Where do earthquakes occur? In the central United States annually, the
greatest numbers of earthquakes are associated with the area just south
of the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. However, other fault
zones produce felt earthquakes, including some that have caused
structural damage and injuries.
Our greatest concerns are magnitude 6.0-7.6 events, which do have significant probabilities in the near future.
Damaging earthquakes of this magnitude are very likely within the lifetimes of our children. The USGS stated a 7.6
magnitude earthquake would likely be the strongest event that could occur in the NMSZ.
What does earthquake magnitude mean? Earthquake magnitudes are commonly reported as a “Richter scale”
number. Richter magnitude refers to the measurement of the amplitude of the seismograph record and not the
size, or energy released by the earthquake itself. Modern earthquake magnitude measurements are based on the
area ruptured by the causative fault and the strength of earth materials that are ruptured during an earthquake.
These newer magnitude measurements are a more accurate way to describe earthquake strength.
What is site response? Site response refers to the observed or predicted behavior of geological materials to
earthquake shaking. Geologic hazard maps define earthquake hazards based on the distribution types of these
unconsolidated materials. River or stream sediments can liquefy during large earthquakes and cause damage to
structures as they partly sink or tilt. Ground motion can also be amplified in areas that have soft, thick soils. Areas
that have thin and stiff soils over dense hard bedrock can be expected to have lower levels of shaking and
associated structural damage.
How much increase in energy does each unit magnitude scale represent? Each whole magnitude number increase
represents 10 times the amplitude recorded by a seismograph (6.0 to a 7.0 magnitude). Each whole number step
in the magnitude scale corresponds to the release of about 32 times more energy than the amount associated
with the preceding whole number value. Therefore, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake is 32 times more powerful than a
6.0 magnitude earthquake.
What can we do to protect ourselves? Education, planning, proper building construction and preparedness are
proven means to minimize earthquake losses, deaths and injuries. In recent years, San Francisco and Armenia
both experienced 6.0 to 7.1 magnitude quakes. San Francisco prepared by defining potential geological hazard
areas, adopting earthquake resistant building design codes and educating the public. Armenia had not adopted
similar hazard planning strategies. San Francisco suffered 67 deaths and less than $7 billion in property losses.
Armenia had over 25,000 deaths and sustained more than $20 billion in property losses. In October 2009, the
Vanuatu region northeast of Australia had three earthquakes of 6.8 to 7.7 magnitude. Losses were minimal in this
event because the epicenter was in a remote location.
Remember to “Drop, Cover and Hold On”when you feel shaking! The Southern California Earthquake Center is one
of many official agencies that urge you to “DROP, COVER and HOLD ON” as soon as shaking begins. The center
reports that search and rescue teams that have been involved in rescues
of trapped survivors in the U.S. and other countries have concluded that
“Drop, Cover and Hold On” is the best way to reduce injuries and deaths
during an earthquake. This is also the consensus among emergency
managers, researchers and school safety advocates. If you feel shaking,
DROP to the ground immediately, take COVER under a sturdy desk or
table, and HOLD ON until the shaking stops.
We have a choice. We cannot prevent an earthquake – it will happen – but we can reduce the potential loss of
life. You can go to the Missouri State Emergency Management Agency’s website
(/earthquake_preparedness/) to download earthquake information. You can also call SEMA at (573) 5269100 for free literature on protecting yourself and your property.
This fact sheet was prepared by the State Emergency
Management Agency in coordination with the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and
Land Survey. (Revised – March 2010)
Building a More Resilient Nation
USGS Director Mark Myers
National Earthquake Conference
April 23, 2008
U.S.
U.S. Department
Department of
of the
the Interior
Interior
U.S.
U.S. Geological
Geological Survey
Survey
Last week’s magnitude-5.2 earthquake in Illinois
• Over 36,000 Did You
Feel It? reports on the
USGS web site
• Felt reports from 16
states plus Ontario,
Canada
• Reminder that
earthquakes are a
national issue
Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges –
USGS Science in the Decade 2007-2017
Understanding Ecosystems and Predicting Ecosystem Change
Climate Variability and Change
Energy and Minerals for
America’s Future
A National Hazards, Risk, and
Resilience Assessment Program
The Role of Environment and
Wildlife in Human Health
A Water Census of the United States
Hazards in the USGS Science Strategy
• Robust monitoring infrastructure and technology for
network communications
• Characterizing and assessing hazards
• Improved forecasting capability based on
understanding physical processes
In all these areas, partnerships are vital
for a coordinated hazard and risk program
Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS)
Backbone completion with support from
NSF’s EarthScope
ShakeMap now available as Google Earth
transparent overlay
Northridge ShakeMap in Google Earth (KML Format)
Wells, Nevada
magnitude-6
earthquake
Feb. 21, 2008
ANSS monitoring of structures
Structural Array in Atwood
Building, Anchorage AK
M. Çelebi
National Volcano Early Warning System:
Closing the monitoring gap
Mt. St. Helens
Mt. Rainier
NVEW S TARG ETS
K il a u e a , H I
S t. H e le n s , W A
R a in ie r, W A
H ood, O R
S h a s ta , C A
S o u th S is te r, O R
Lassen, C A
M auna Loa, H I
R e d o u b t, A K
M a k u s h in . A K
G la c ie r P e a k , W A
A k u ta n , A K
B a k e r, W A
S p u rr, A K
N e w b e rry
V o lc a n o ,O R
A u g u s tin e , A K
C ra te r L a k e , O R
In y o C ra te rs ., C A
A dam s, W A ,
V e n ia m in o f, A K
W ra n g e ll , A K
M o n o C ra te rs , C A
H u a l a l a i, H I
M e d ic in e L a k e , C A
P agan, C N M I
C h u r c h i ll , A K
A n a ta h a n , C N M I
C le a r L a k e , C A
A la m a g a n , C N M I
K aguyak, A K
D u tto n , A K
H ayes, A K
Em m ons Lake, A K
S eguam , A K
C h ig in a g a k , A K
M O N IT O R I N G
G AP
1
1
E R U P T IO N
E R U P T IO N
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
2
3
2
3
2
4
3
2
1
2
E R U P T IO N
2
3
2
3
3
3
E R U P T IO N
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
Global Seismographic Network
9 new stations to support
NOAA Caribbean tsunami
warning system
• 32 stations upgraded
• Bandwidth expanded at
21 stations
• Telemetry added to 8
stations
PAGER
Prompt
Assessment of
Global
Earthquakes for
Response
http://earthquake.
usgs.gov/pager/
• Earth Observation
• Science
• Societal Benefit
Integration of Earth
Observation Systems
Seismic hazard assessments:
National, regional, urban
U.S. National Seismic Hazard Maps
Uniform California
Earthquake Rupture
Forecast
Seattle urban
hazard map
Courtesy of M. Bevis, OSU
LIDAR: Revolutionizing hazard mapping in the
Pacific Northwest and elsewhere
Bainbridge
Island WA
Islandw
ood sc
arp
Toe Jam Hill scarp
Puget
Sound
Land Use Portfolio Model used in Memphis
Scenarios: Making the hazard real
Southern California Earthquake Center:
A collaboration with NSF and the
university community
SCEC model of active faults in Southern California
Trenching the San Andreas Fault
External grants and cooperative agreements: a key
component of the Earthquake Hazards Program
• Approximately 25% of core
program funds
• Gives flexibility and adds
breadth of expertise to
program
• Leverages support from
other state and federal
agencies, and universities
USGS-funded research by Goldfinger et al.
uses turbidites to determine precise ages for
earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone
External advice – SESAC and NEPEC
• Scientific Earthquake
Studies Advisory
Committee
– Mark Zoback, Chairman
– Ralph Archuleta
(Chair, ANSS Steering
Committee)
– James Dieterich
– Art Lerner-Lam
– Vicki McConnell
– Stuart Nishenko
– John Parrish
– Ellen Rathje
– Garry Rogers
• National Earthquake
Prediction Evaluation
Council
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Jim Dieterich, Chair
Dave Applegate*, Vice-chair
Ramon Arrowsmith
Göran Ekström
William Ellsworth*
David Jackson
Evelyn Roeloffs*
Barbara Romanowicz
Bruce Shaw
Wayne Thatcher*
Jeroen Tromp
Mary Lou Zoback
* USGS staff
USGS initiated Multi-hazard
Demonstration Project in 2007
• Focused on reducing losses in Southern California: a
region subject to multiple hazards
• Integrate information from
multiple hazards to
improve usefulness
• Work closely with dozens
of partner organizations to
leverage resources and
optimize performance
The Great Southern California ShakeOut
• USGS and partners are creating complete “rupture-torecovery scenario” for plausible worst-case earthquake
• Agreement with Office of Homeland Security to use this
scenario for the 2008 “Golden Guardian Exercise”;
includes school and business drills
Palmdale
Los
Angeles
Palm
Springs
USGS – a proud partner in
NSF’s EarthScope
• Exploring the structure and evolution of the North American continent
• Understanding processes causing earthquakes and volcanic eruptions
Drilling into the San
Andreas Fault
Portable Seismometers
Permanent Seismometers
GPS Stations
Borehole Strainmeters
Long-baseline Laser
Strainmeters
The mandate of the National Earthquake
Hazard Reduction Program
Northridge 1994
• Develop effective measures
for earthquake loss reduction;
• Promote their adoption;
• Improve the understanding of
earthquakes and their effects
on communities, buildings,
structures, and lifelines.
national earthquake hazards reduction program
Draft NEHRP strategic plan available for
public comment
• Identifies strategic
priorities for NEHRP
• Comments accepted until
May 9th
• Visit www.nehrp.gov
national earthquake hazards reduction program
Science in partnership – a more resilient Nation
Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges –
USGS Science in the Decade 2007-2017
Understanding Ecosystems and Predicting Ecosystem Change
Climate Variability and Change
Energy and Minerals for
America’s Future
A National Hazards, Risk, and
Resilience Assessment Program
The Role of Environment and
Wildlife in Human Health
A Water Census of the United States
Southern California Earthquake Center:
A collaboration with NSF and the
university community
SCEC model of active faults in Southern California
Trenching the San Andreas Fault
External grants and cooperative agreements: a key
component of the Earthquake Hazards Program
• Approximately 25% of core
program funds
• Gives flexibility and adds
breadth of expertise to
program
• Leverages support from
other state and federal
agencies, and universities
USGS-funded research by Goldfinger et al.
uses turbidites to determine precise ages for
earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone
Making America More Resilient toward Natural Disasters:
A Call for Action*
Howard Kunreuther, Erwann Michel-‐Kerjan and Mark Pauly
Environment Magazine (forthcoming)
Howard Kunreuther
James G. Dinan Professor of Business and Public Policy
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
3730 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Phone: 215-‐898-‐4589
Fax: 215-‐573-‐2310
Email: kunreuther@wharton.upenn.edu
Erwann Michel-‐Kerjan
Managing Director, Center for Risk Management and Decision Processes
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
3730 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Phone: 215-‐573-‐0515
Fax: 215-‐573-‐2310
Email: erwannmk@wharton.upenn.edu
Mark Pauly
Bendheim Professor in the Department of Health Care Systems
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
208 Colonia Penn Center, 3641 Locust Walk
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Phone: (215) 898-‐2837
Fax: 215.573.7025
Email: pauly@wharton.upenn.edu
*We thank our colleagues Karen Campbell, Jeff Czajkowski, Dena Gromet and Robert Meyer
as well as the Sponsors of the Wharton Risk Center Extreme Events Project for insightful
comments. Carol Heller provided helpful editorial assistance. Support for this research
comes from the National Science Foundation (SES-‐1061882 and SES-‐1062039); the Center
for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE) at the University of Southern
California; CRED at Columbia University; the Travelers Foundation, and the Wharton Risk
Management and Decision Processes Center.
1
Making America More Resilient toward Natural Disasters:
A Call for Action
Howard Kunreuther, Erwann Michel-‐Kerjan and Mark Pauly
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
March 6, 2013
I. Introduction
Hurricane Sandy caused an estimated $65 billion in economic losses to residences,
business owners and infrastructure owners.1 It is the second most costly natural disaster
in recent years in the United States after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, but it is not an
outlier; economic and insured losses from devastating natural catastrophes in the United
States and worldwide are climbing. According to Munich Re,2 real-dollar economic
losses from natural catastrophes alone increased from $528 billion (1981-1990), $1,197
billion (1991-2000) to $1,23 billion (2001-2010). During the past ten years, the losses
were principally due to hurricanes and resulting storm surge occurring in 2004, 2005, and
2008. Figure 1 depicts the evolution of the direct economic losses and the insured portion
from great natural disasters over the period 1970-2011.2
2
FIGURE 1. NATURAL CATASTROPHES WORLDWIDE 1980-2011. OVERALL AND INSURED LOSSES
WITH TREND ($ BILLION)
Sources: Munich Re Geo Risks Research
Extreme events highlight the challenges in encouraging residents in hazard-prone areas to
protect themselves against future disaster losses. A 1974 survey of more than 1,000
California homeowners in earthquake-prone areas revealed that only 12 percent of the
respondents had adopted any protective measures.3 Fifteen years later, there was little
change despite the increased public awareness of the earthquake hazard. In a 1989
survey of 3,500 homeowners in four California counties at risk from earthquakes, only 5
to 9 percent of the respondents in these areas reported adopting any loss reduction
measures.4 Residents in flood-prone areas have demonstrated a similar reluctance to
invest in mitigation measures.5,6
3
Even after the devastating 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons, a large number of residents
had still not invested in relatively inexpensive loss-reduction measures with respect to
their property, nor had they undertaken emergency preparedness measures. A survey of
1,100 adults living along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts undertaken in May 2006 revealed
that 83 percent of the responders had taken no steps to fortify their home, 68 percent had
no hurricane survival kit and 60 percent had no family disaster plan.7
A survey of nearly 800 residents in coastal counties during Hurricane Irene in 2011
revealed that less than half of storm shutter owners in the state of New York actually
installed them to protect their windows before the hurricane came. The others did not
because it would have “taken too long.” This is an interesting example of mitigation
measures being purchased but not utilized.8
On the positive side, 89 percent of respondents of this survey in North Carolina and 88
percent in New York indicated doing at least one storm preparation activity (e.g., buying
water and food reserves and batteries). But these are short-term preparation actions that
required limited effort. Many fewer households undertake protective measures when
preparedness requires considerable foresight, effort and capital.
Key decision makers who authorize development of hazard-prone areas after dams or
levees are built may unintentionally reinforce this behavior. There is compelling evidence
that residents moving into these areas feel completely safe, when in fact, they are still at
risk for catastrophes should the dam or levee be breached or overtopped.9 If a
catastroph…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment