Josh Galster: Teaching Natural Hazards and Risks: Hurricanes in Earth and the Environment at Montclair State University

Unit 1

Unit 1 was covered in one lecture period with ~22 students, and it took 70 minutes to complete activities 1.1 and 1.3. I chose a local example for return period for the end of Activity 1.3, and also chose a home value that would produce a round number ($30,000) for the annual risk. Activity 1.1 was useful for generating discussion, especially from those students who do not normally participate as much.

• Activity 1.1 was shown conducted in class instead of pre-class. The image at the center of the activity was projected on the screen, and students were given the opportunity to write down their thoughts for a few minutes. Students were prompted to list the hazards visible in the image, as well as how the parachutist could reduce her risk from those hazards. Student answers were written and compiled on the board.
  

• Activity 1.2 was not completed.
  

• Activity 1.3 was done in class, and the Unit 1 presentation was shown. The differences between hazards and risks were clarified, and students generated examples of the two. One example we used was the hazard of driving and how its associated risks could be reduced. The idea of "return period" was discussed in terms of an event being frequent or rare, and then students examined the return periods of hurricanes on different areas of the eastern United States. Finally, how risk can be calculated using the equation "risk = likelihood x cost" was introduced, and how the risk from hurricanes to a coastal home would change based on geographic location (frequency of hurricanes) and cost (value of home). I choose New Jersey as an additional example to calculate the risk, using a return period of 19 years and a hypothetical home value of $570,000 to generate an annual risk of $30,000.
  

Unit 2

Unit 2 was covered in approximately 30 minutes in the first half of the lecture class. Students were unfamiliar using the uncertainty cone in the student activity sheet to decide whether to set sail, but enjoyed envisioning themselves as captains.

• The video at the beginning was not shown, although I would do so in the future. The unit began with the instructor using the PowerPoint slides provided to give the students a background in hurricane formation. Most of my students have very little oceanographic knowledge, so they were not familiar with hurricane formation.
  

• The student activity sheet was used to discuss the situation of being the captain of a ship and deciding whether it makes sense to sail, using the available information. Students used information about the past course of a hurricane and its projected course and travel time to make that decision.
  

Unit 3

Unit 3 was covered in 30 minutes during a laboratory session, as the hands-on nature of the activity lent itself nicely to this format. Activity 3.1 was completed as part of Unit 3.

• Students completed Activity 3.1 by plotting the position of Hurricane Irene's path. They used two positions per day (I chose 0:00 and 12:00) to track its motion. This gave the students experience using latitude and longitude coordinate systems. Each student had the map from the activity so they could plot it individually, although they worked in small groups. Students identified where and when the hurricane made landfall in the United States.
  

Unit 4

Unit 4 was split between two different meeting times with students. Activities 4.1 and 4.3 were completed during a classroom meeting while Activity 4.2 was done during a laboratory meeting. Both formats worked well, and I only split them to better fit them into the time of the different meetings.

• Activity 4.1 covers the broad coastal and fluvial impacts of hurricanes, with special emphasis on Hurricane Irene. Many of my students had just experienced this hurricane firsthand, so while they could relate their individual perspectives, they learned more about the regional impacts.
  

• Activity 4.2 included digital elevation models (DEMs) of pre- and post-Hurricane Irene, highlighting areas that changed in elevation. These changes represent either deposition (increased elevation) or erosion (decreased elevation). I showed students one example first of pre-Irene, post-Irene, and then a DEM showing the difference (which subtracts the two, post minus pre). I then showed the students the Rodanthe pre- and post-DEMs, and had them sketch the differences. At first students were a bit intimidated, both by trying to get all the details correct as well as by their artistic skills (or lack thereof), but with coaching and encouragement they did well.
  

• Activity 4.3 was combined at the end of 4.1 in a lecture period. Discussion was generated on the unique situation of a river tributary (the Pompton River) having a higher peak discharge than the main stem (the Passaic River). This seemingly violates the general concept of tributaries having less discharge than the rivers they flow into, but when explained that the Passaic River had a much larger volume of discharge from the storm (visible on the hydrograph), it makes sense.
  

Unit 5

Unit 5 was taught during the second half of a laboratory session, along with Unit 3 (see above). Both activities were used, and students had handouts in order to complete their assignments.

• Activity 5.1 involves plotting the changing hurricane frequencies, deaths, and damage during the 20th century. I had the students plot these by hand in class, but having them plot it using Excel or another program would also work well.
  

• Activity 5.2 uses historic aerial photography and topographic maps and compares them to modern satellite photographs to determine the changes in coastal development, and consequently the changes in coastal risks. A review of the differences between hazards and risk is included and was used, which was helpful for the students to revisit those differences.
  

Unit 6

I had the students read the New York Times article (I passed out paper copies to each student) written as Hurricane Isaac was approaching and people were debating whether to evacuate. I then listed the stakeholders on the board and allowed students to form themselves into small (~2-3 students) groups representing each of the stakeholders. The stakeholders I used were 1) FEMA officials, 2) homeowners, 3) hardware store owner, 4) transit officials, and 5) first responders. Each group then formulated its input to me; I played a spineless mayor who was wavering over whether to evacuate. Each group shared its opinion, and there was some back-and-forth on whether evacuating was the prudent decision. All the groups except the hardware store owners decided to evacuate in the end. This activity was excellent at generating discussion and (civil) debate.