Michael L. Sulkowski

Jill M. West

LESSONS FROM HISTORY: EFFECTS OF MANMADE DISASTERS ON COMMUNITIES AND SCHOOLS

PRESENTED AT THE LOUISIANA SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE

NOVEMBER 3, 2010

• Largest maritime oil spill in U.S. historyBetween 101 and 327 million gallons estimated to have spilled

Flow rate somewhere between 1.5 to 4.1 million gallons per day

Oil slick covers over 2,500 square miles

• 11 workers killed and 17 injured• Massive economic consequences• Thousands of animals killed

THE DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL

• From 1973 to 1990, 11.8 million gallons of oil have spilled into U.S. waters each year on average (Etkin, 2001)

Spillage has been reduced to about 1.5 million gallons per year since 1990 (Etkin, 2001)

• 1,270 hazardous waste sites on the “National Priorities List”

Sites that pose “a significant public health threat” (Environmental Protection Agency, 2010)

OTHER TECHNOLOGICAL/ECOLOGICAL DISASTERS

• Approximately 20,000 tons of toxic waste are buried in the 1950s

• Land is sold and developedA school is built; 400 students enroll

• 1960s and 1970s—residents of Love Canal in Niagara Falls, NY begin complaining of health risks associated with chemical exposure

LOVE CANAL

• 1979—Partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, PA

140,000 residents are evacuatedCommunity is disrupted

• Unclear immediate and long-term risks associated with radiation exposure

• Resulted in: widespread fear frustration

THREE MILE ISLAND

• A review of 130 U.S. disasters suggests that these disasters cause the greatest long-term devastation (Norris et al., 2002)

• Six years after the Exxon-Valdez spill:23% of men and 13% of women had clinically significant anxiety39% of men and 20% of men had depression34% of male fishers and 40% of female fishers had elevated PTSD symptoms (Arata, Picou, Johnson, & McNally, 2000)

• Six years after Three Mile Island:Elevated rates of anxiety, depression, and somatic distress were found in the community surrounding the plant (Baum & Flemming, 1993)

LONG-TERM PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF TECHNOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL DISASTERS

• Culpable companies and victims have different motivations

• Multiple parties with different motivations become involved:

Attorneys, politicians, various businesses, government officials, activists, opportunists

• Differences of opinion within victims• Effects on employees and employment• “Confrontive coping”

POST DISASTER CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

• Cases tend to be long and drawn out:Hooker Chemicals did not pay restitution until 1995 even though complaints began in the 1960sIt took 19 years for most victims to be compensated after the Exxon-Valdez spill$5 billion reduced to $507 million

• Companies will try to limit liabilityContributes to misinformation

• Being involved with litigation appears to exacerbate stress and interfere with coping and recovery (Picou, Marshall, & Gill, 2004)

POST DISASTER LITIGATION

• No clearly established recovery period• Income-loss spirals

Loss of $155 million to fishermen following Exxon-Valdez

• Occupational disruptions• Disruptions in interpersonal relationships

Maladaptive coping• Difficulty finding meaning in disaster or using

religious beliefs to come to terms with tragedy (Kroll-Smith & Couch, 1987)

ECONOMIC, INTERPERSONAL, AND PERSONAL RESOURCE LOSS

• Technological disasters have a corrosive effect on the social fabric that could pull people together during a crisis or facilitate post-traumatic growth (Lazarus & Sulkowski, 2010)

Increases tension in communitiesExacerbates discriminationLove canal example

THE CORROSIVE COMMUNITY

• Natural disasters and acts of mass violence:Cause immediate concern and alarmMore familiarUsually time limited

• Technological/ecological disasters:May be difficult to identify threats and risks Few may be experts on nature of threatCan have chronic and long-term effectsMay be difficult to identify recovery stages(Lazarus & Sulkowski, 2010)

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TECHNOLOGICAL/ECOLOGICAL DISASTERS AND

OTHER DISASTERS

Based on work by Hobfoll et al., 20071. Promote a sense of safety2. Calm the fearful3. Engender a sense of self-efficacy and

collective efficacy in affected individuals and communities

4. Increase feelings of connectedness with others

5. Instill and inspire hope in discouraged victims

FIVE EMPIRICALLY SUPPORTED ELEMENTS OF CRISIS INTERVENTION FOR

TECHNOLOGICAL/ECOLOGICAL DISASTERS

• People may need to be informed of risks and threatsInformation should be coupled with strategies to limit risk or exposure

• Prevent the “pressure cooker” effectRumors and horror stories are often spread

• Basic needs come first!

PROMOTE SAFETY

• Children need to be provided with developmentally appropriate information

Information should be objective and concreteNeed to be told that they are loved, safe, and will be protected

• Reestablish the “protective shield”Schools can be rallying points for recovery operationsSchool-based mental health workers can assume leadership roles and disseminate safety information

• Collaborate with outside organizationsNASP National Emergency Assistance Team (NEAT)American Red Cross

PROMOTE SAFETY

• Therapeutic groundingProvide support in safe and easily accessible facilitiesNormalize experiences and emotionsDevelop a culture of caringHave an “open-door” policy for receiving support

• Diaphragmatic breathing• Progressive muscle relaxation• Exposure-response prevention therapy

Gradual and repeated exposure to feared stimuli Habituation

• Problem-solving and cooperationBreak large problems into more manageable onesRemain optimistic, realistic, and calm

PROMOTE CALMING

• Technological disasters often engender feelings of powerlessness

Learned helplessness

• The belief that one can cope with trauma has been found to predict adaptive functioning in the wake of disasters (Basoglu, Salcioglu, Livanou, Kalender, & Acar, 2005; Bleich, Gelkopf, & Solomon, 2003)

PROMOTE SELF- AND COMMUNITY EFFICACY

• Align with victimsHelp facilitate post-disaster adjustmentHelp with litigation

• Model active and adaptive coping• Sponsor recovery activities

Youth also can help rebuild or improve the community

• Foster empowerment instead of dependency

PROMOTE SELF- AND COMMUNITY EFFICACY

• Social connectedness promotes emotional support, adaptive coping, and the transfer of important knowledge

• Focus on supporting families • Reach out to those who may be unwilling or not

know how to ask for help• Support local recovery organizations

External support is time-limited

PROMOTE CONNECTEDNESS

• Schools can provide social supports and connections• Prevent disruptions in normal activities

Extra curricular activities, sports, etc.• Identify and address negative social support

E.g., substance abuse, exploitation, intimidation• Know which populations are most vulnerable to

continued or additional victimization• Be sensitive to cultural and individual differences

PROMOTE CONNECTEDNESS

PROMOTE CONNECTEDNESS: A CASE EXAMPLE

• In 2002, the Prestige oil tanker released 63,000 tons of oil off the coastline of France and Spain (Sabucedo, Arce, Ferraces, Merino, & Duran, 2008)

• Local coastlines were coated and the fishing industry was devastated

• However, individuals with high levels of perceived social support and high satisfaction with the economic aid they received fared better psychologically than individuals who reported low levels of perceived social support and low satisfaction with economic aid • Thus, communities who band together may be able to advocate

for more funding resources or lobby for rebuilding efforts, which could also ameliorate the effects of the disaster

• Hope often is action-oriented in Western middle-class societies

• However, for others hope is instead associated with specific beliefs, an outgrowth of people’s personal relationships with God, connection to some higher power, trust in a responsible government, and superstition in some societies (Hobfoll, Briggs-Phillips, & Stines, 2003)

• May be difficult to find optimism in technological/ecological disasters, but is a vital component to minimizing negative outcomes

• Slow-paced recovery progress after disasters are correlated with high levels of suicidality; however, optimism is correlated with low levels of suicidality (Kessler et al., 2008)

INSTILL HOPE

The act of displaying concern, interest, and a willingness to help can decrease feelings of hopelessnessAvoid pointing toward “silver linings” before a person is ready. May seem dismissive• Empathize with plight but do not reinforce

catastrophizing • Prevent victims from blaming themselves or family

members• Support personal, emotional, and spiritual growth when

possible

INSTILL HOPE

• Technological disasters are associated with:• Erosions in interpersonal relationships, community connections, adaptive

coping, income-loss spirals, and long and drawn-out litigation• Those who lose the most social, economic, and personal resources are the

most devastated and those who have the ability to sustain their resources have the best ability to recover

Can use the five essential elements of immediate and mid-term intervention to bolster community cohesion: 1. Promote a sense of safety2. Calm the fearful3. Engender a sense of self-efficacy and collective efficacy in affected

individuals and communities4. Increase feelings of connectedness with others5. Instill and inspire hope in discouraged victims

CONCLUSION AND QUESTIONS

WE THANK YOU FOR YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

Arata, C. M., Picou, S. J., Johnson, D. G., & McNally, S. T. (2000). Coping with technological disaster: An application of the conservation of resources model to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 13, 23-39.Basoglu, M., Salcioglu, E., Livanou, M., Kalender, D., & Acar, G. (2005). Single-session behavioral treatment of earthquake-related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A randomized waitlist controlled trial. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18, 1-11.Baum, A., & Fleming, I. (1993). Implications of psychological research on stress and technological accidents. American Psychologist, 48, 665–672.Bleich, A., Gelkopf, M., & Solomon, Z. (2003). Exposure to terrorism, stress-related mental health symptoms, and coping behaviors among a nationally representative sample in Israel. Journal of the American Medical Association, 290, 612-620.Etkin, D. S. (2001). Analysis of oil spill trends in the US and worldwide. Proceedings of 2001 International Oil Spill Conference: 1,291-1,300.Hobfoll, S. E., Briggs–Phillips, M., & Stines, L. R. (2003). Fact or artifact: The relationship of hope to a caravan of resources. In R. Jacoby & G. Keinan (Eds.), Between stress and hope: From a disease–centered to a health–centered perspective (pp. 81–104). Westport, CT: Praeger.

REFERENCES

Hobfoll, S. E., Watson, P., Bell, C. C., Bryant, R. A., Brymer, M. J., Friedman, M. J., et al. (2007). Five essential elements of immediate and mid-term mass trauma intervention: Empirical evidence. Psychiatry, 70, 283-315.Kessler, R.C., Galea, S., Gruber, M.J., Sampson, N.A., Ursano, R.J., & Wessely, S. (2008). Trends in mental illness and suicidality after Hurricane Katrina. Molecular Psychiatry, 13, 374-384.Kroll-Smith, J. S., & Couch, S. R. (1987). A chronic technical disaster and the irrelevance of religious meaning: The case of Centralia, Pennsylvania. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 26,5-37.Lazarus, P. J., & Sulkowski, M. L. (2010). Oil in the water, fire in the sky: Responding to technological/environmental disasters. Communiqué, 39, 1 & 16-17.Norris, F. H., Friedman, M. J., Watson, P. J., Byrne, C. M., Diaz, E., & Kaniasty, K. (2002). 60,000 disaster victims speak, Part I: An empirical review of the empirical literature, 1981–2001. Psychiatry, 65, 207–239.Picou, J. S., Marshall, B. K., & Gill, D. A. (2004). Disaster, litigation, and corrosive community. Social Forces, 82, 1493-1522. Sabucedo, J.M., Arce, C., Ferraces, M.J., Merino, H., & Duran, M. (2008). Psychological impact of the Prestige catastrophe. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 9, 105-116.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). National priority list site totals by status and milestone. Retrieved May 31, 2010 from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/npltotal.htm

REFERENCES