hurricane matthew case study geography

• Projects & Operations

Rapidly Assessing the Impact of Hurricane Matthew in Haiti

Streets in Haiti after Hurricane Matthew. Photo: MINUSTAH

The Haitian population is one of the most exposed in the world to natural disasters, including hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes. The number of disasters per kilometer tops the average for other Caribbean countries. The Germanwatch Global Climate Risk Index ranked Haiti third in the world in 1995–2014 for impacts from climatic events, and the country is among the ten zones in the world considered most vulnerable to climate change. In 2008, tropical storms and hurricanes caused losses estimated at 15 percent of GDP. The earthquake on January 12, 2010, killed 220,000 people, displaced 1.5 million people, and destroyed the equivalent of 120 percent of GDP. These disasters tend to disproportionately affect the poorest and most marginal populations, those settling in the flood zones and coastal areas particularly affected by tropical storms. Almost 50 percent of damage and losses to the productive sectors have been concentrated in the agricultural sector. Based on available historic data, weather-related disasters are estimated to have caused damage and losses in Haiti amounting to about two percent of GDP on average per year from 1975 to 2012.

Hurricane Matthew struck Haiti on October 4, 2016, as a Category 4 hurricane. The combined effects of wind, coastal flooding and rain caused heavy flooding, landslides, and the destruction of a great deal of infrastructure, agricultural crops and natural ecosystems. In all, 546 people were killed, more than 175,500 people sought refuge in shelters, and about 1.4 million people required immediate humanitarian assistance. An assessment of the damage and losses had to be carried out very quickly to unlock financial resources from the World Bank Group (WBG) and the International Monetary Fund to provide the assistance needed by those affected by the disaster.

The WBG, in partnership with the Inter-American Development Bank, closely supported the client through data gathering from field visits, phone surveys, and satellites and drones, as well as simulations through modelling. A full report assessing the damage and losses was delivered less than two weeks after the request, a task that usually takes at least three months. This rapid assessment covered all affected sectors and was the first multi-sectoral evaluation of the socioeconomic impacts of the hurricane as well as of its macroeconomic effects and impacts on individual and household income.

Matthew was a Category 4 hurricane, an event predicted to occur only once every 56 years. It inflicted damage and losses in Haiti estimated at the equivalent of 22 percent of GDP. Specific impacts of the hurricane included the following:

• The disaster affected over 2 million people, about 20 percent of Haiti’s population, primarily in the poorest regions of the county.
• The hurricane resulted in flooding, landslides, and extensive destruction of infrastructure and livelihoods.
• The agriculture and housing/urban sectors were the hardest hit, with up to 90 percent of crops and livestock lost in some areas.
• Thousands of structures were damaged, and key roads and bridges were washed away.
• It’s estimated that over 450,000 children were out of school.
• The vaccine cold chain was destroyed.
• A sharp increase in suspected cholera cases was recorded in affected departments.

Assessing in record time the damage and losses, as well as identifying the most affected sectors and the potential human costs, led to rapid reallocation of about US$50 million from the Bank’s ongoing portfolio. The enabled responses included:

• Rehabilitation of roads and bridges, including the major bridge to the country’s south.
• Schools were repaired and refurnished, semi-permanent school shelters built, school children fed, and water treatment kits and school kits provided.
• Rapid response to cholera was strengthened.
• Emergency sanitation and chlorination water systems were implemented.
• Irrigations systems were rehabilitated, inputs for the next agricultural season were provided and seeds given to 2,500 farmers.
• Some entrepreneurs received cash transfers to cover damages and losses in the coffee, cocoa, and honey value chains.
• Portable solar lamps and solar household systems were made available, some distribution grids were rehabilitated, hurricane preparedness was strengthened and energy infrastructure vulnerability was reduced.

These rapid interventions not only helped to minimize losses in the winter harvest and prevent widespread famine, they also helped contain the cholera outbreak and limit migration and violence.

Bank Group Contribution

The World Bank, through the International Development Association (IDA), reallocated US$50 million from ongoing projects to the affected sectors. In addition, US$100 million under the IDA Crisis Response Window were mobilized for four additional financings to relaunch heavily damaged agriculture, restore connectivity through transport infrastructure and provide a robust cholera response.

Bank support focused on sectors with limited technical capacity, and particularly those sectors with counterparts in the government. The support promoted local ownership of the assessment by each of the line ministries while ensuring implementation of a standardized methodology. The rapid assessment benefited from joint support from the Inter-American Development Bank teams, FAO, UNICEF, and UNEP. In addition, the IMF mobilized US$ 41 million under their Rapid Credit Facility to help with urgent balance of payments needs in the aftermath of Matthew.

Beneficiaries

The rapid assessment allowed the identification of populations in need of urgent assistance, including over 30,000 children in affected schools. The assessment also provided information for effective targeting of rehabilitation efforts: about 45 school roofs and school grounds were rehabilitated, 60 semi-permanent shelters were built, and 4,000 pieces of school furniture (benches, desks, blackboards, etc.) were distributed, enabling schools to reopen and to increase their capacity in the short and medium term. In addition, 16,000 student kits (bag, books, notebooks, pens), 900 teacher kits (including dictionaries, compasses, rulers, maps), and 151 school kits (including blackboards and chalk) were distributed. Further efforts included providing 22,000 students in 90 schools in affected regions (Grand’Anse, Sud, and Nippes) with a daily snack and hot meal, as well as water-treatment and sanitation kits, soap, de-worming medication, vitamin A and cholera-prevention hygiene training. 

Subsequent interventions targeted 1.5 million beneficiaries in areas with limited health service delivery infrastructure. Isolated populations in the southern peninsula benefited from the provision of health services through mobile clinics, and in Nippes, Grande-Anse and Sud,

300,000 children benefited from the restoration of basic infrastructure for immunization and vaccine cold chains.

Cash transfers and in-kind support will also be provided to 325 micro, small and medium-sized entrepreneurs. The cash transfers and in-kind support will help the beneficiaries recover from losses and continue productive activities in their respective value chain, i.e., coffee (Grand'Anse and Southeast); vetiver (South); and honey (Nippes).

Moving Forward

This rapid damage and losses assessment fed into the more thorough Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) undertaken under the leadership of the Haitian Ministry of Planning, with support from the World Bank Group, the European Union, the Inter-American Development Bank, UNDP and various UN agencies. The PDNA was finalized in early January 2017 and launched by the President of the Republic in early February 2017. More importantly, this rapid assessment was instrumental in drawing up the needed framework and quickly moving from emergency response to recovery. Finally, this rapid assessment served as an important input to the preparation of the Bank’s first financing to reach the Board post–Hurricane Matthew. An International Development Agency education grant of US$ 30 million to maintain access to quality education in the areas most affected by Hurricane Matthew, delivered to the Board approximately five weeks after the disaster, was approved in November 2016.

• Download the compiled data
• Blog: The farmers, engineers, and health workers helping rebuild Haiti after Matthew
• Blog: 100 Days After Matthew, Seven Years After the ‘Quake’: Is Haiti More Resilient?
• A short video of before and after the hurricane

362. Hurricane Matthew 2016

Description.

In this Geography Factsheet you will find: • Development of Hurricane Matthew. • Track of Hurricane Matthew. • Examples of preparation for Matthew. • Impact on Haiti. • Timeline of Matthews impact on Haiti.

Download Type

.PDF (pdf) 1.866 MB

Publication Date

Issn / isbn.

ISSN: 1351-5136

Copyright Disclaimer

The materials published on this website are protected by the Copyright Act of 1988. No part of our online resources may be reproduced or reused for any commercial purpose, or transmitted, in any other form or by any other means, without the prior permission of Curriculum Press Ltd.

Similar Resources

What our customers say, find exactly what you’re looking for..

• Popular Searches
• A Level Media Studies
• A Level Sociology

Work with us

Get in touch.

• © 2024 Curriculum Press
• | Terms & Conditions
• | Privacy & Cookies |
• Website MadeByShape

Five Years Later, Five Lessons Learned from Matthew

It’s a rare storm that now stands out more for its similarities to, rather than its differences from, others in its era.

Five years ago today, Hurricane Matthew brushed the North Carolina coastline but still caused incredible inland impacts. It wasn’t our first modern hurricane to produce significant freshwater flooding — Floyd in 1999 held that distinction — but it also isn’t the latest, with Florence in 2018 inundating many of the same areas affected by its predecessors.

As has become clear over the past five years, if Floyd was our nightmare, then Matthew was the wake-up call, reinforcing the drenching danger posed by tropical systems far from the coastline.

With the benefit of hindsight, and through the voices of those who experienced Matthew and its impacts first-hand, here are five lessons learned from and since that storm.

Skip Ahead: Forecast Messaging | Inland Flooding | Infrastructure | Agriculture | Future Planning

Track and intensity don’t tell the full story.

On its way to North Carolina, Matthew sent forecasters for a loop — and it nearly went for one itself.

After crossing the Bahamas at Category-4 strength, some model forecasts showed Matthew grinding up the Southeast coastline before looping out to sea and eventually doubling back toward the same areas, effectively boxed in by high pressure developing to the north.

While it avoided such an unusual track, its actual track and evolution didn’t make things any easier for National Weather Service offices in the path of the storm.

Despite weakening to a Category-1 and being projected to remain mostly off the North Carolina coast, Matthew still carried the threat of significant impacts far away from its center.

“Matthew was a great example of why we have to constantly reiterate in our messaging to not focus on the skinny black line on the forecast map and understand that the forecast cone is not an impact cone,” said Steve Pfaff , the Warning Coordination Meteorologist at the National Weather Service in Wilmington.

Indeed, while Matthew’s eroding eye never made landfall in North Carolina, a foot of rain fell up to 100 miles inland in areas that may have assumed themselves safe from the worst of the storm.

Predicting exactly where the heaviest rain — and the worst flooding — would occur also created a forecasting and communications challenge.

“I remember that while excessive amounts were expected, the distribution of the axis of heaviest rainfall was still in question since it would not take much of a shift in the storm’s track to make huge differences in where the rain fell,” said Pfaff. “Subsequently, that would have an impact on which river basins would be hardest hit with the subsequent flooding.”

The nuances of which regions could have seen such extreme totals can be difficult to display, especially when users are accustomed to seeing only one forecast amount for their location.

“We convey that uncertainty in our briefings to emergency management and the media, but getting the message about the uncertainty to the public is a challenge, especially when deterministic information is readily available on our websites and in some of our products,” said Rick Neuherz , the Service Hydrologist at NWS Wilmington.

Even after the rain had ended, the meteorological threat posed by Matthew wasn’t over. A period of strong winds on the back edge of the storm knocked down trees and power lines in the rain-weakened ground, leading to more hazards.

“Anyone who was tracking the radar could have easily assumed that the wind threat would be diminishing as the precipitation exited,” said Pfaff. “We had to issue several messages to advise that the situation was not improving, and in fact winds were going to be worse at the end of the event.”

With impacts far from the center of the storm and hours after it had stopped pouring on eastern North Carolina, Matthew demonstrated a difficult lesson in communicating potential hurricane havoc.

Inland and urban flooding demands more attention.

On September 29, 2016, a long-lived thunderstorm dropped up to 10.5 inches of rain over Cumberland County , surging the Cape Fear River and its branches. Excess water breached the river banks and control structures like the Rhodes Pond Dam, then cascaded into downtown Fayetteville, Fort Bragg, and surrounding communities.

At that time, Matthew had just reached hurricane strength over the Caribbean, more than 1,500 miles to our south.

Nine days later, when the storm made its rendezvous with North Carolina, the additional 14 inches of rainfall it brought to the Fayetteville area sent the Cape Fear rising once again.

The September 29 thunderstorm had set a new record high crest of 31.20 feet on the Little River at Manchester , breaking a long-standing high water mark from 1945. On October 10, the floods from Matthew quickly eclipsed that peak, hitting 32.19 feet.

At least 17 dam failures were noted in North Carolina after Matthew, according to the News & Observer , and 13 of those were in the Cape Fear basin, urged along by that antecedent rainfall a week before the hurricane hit.

For the National Weather Service in Raleigh, which covers some of the hardest-hit locations along the Cape Fear and Neuse rivers, the inland and urban flooding impacts in places like Fayetteville weren’t necessarily a surprise, but they were unexpected for some people in the affected areas.

“The perception was that it was always going to be a southeastern North Carolina event,” said Jonathan Blaes , the Meteorologist-in-Charge at NWS Raleigh. “A lot of things pointed to this being a rainfall problem, but it’s not going to be cataclysmic. Fayetteville had a lot of rain before; hopefully, they’re going to dodge it this time.”

They didn’t, of course, and one reason for that was a shift in the forecasts ahead of the storm. A service assessment conducted by NWS noted that while official forecasts were generally accurate, “the forecast issued 48 hours prior to the storm’s closest approach to both South and North Carolina… indicated that the storm would move eastward and away from the coast.”

“That’s a big deal,” said Blaes. “The rainfall forecast that the public and the River Forecast Center uses is based on the official National Hurricane Center track forecast, so that meant it was shifted 120 miles to the south.”

When those rainfall bullseyes eventually repositioned as the forecast was adjusted, they targeted not the coastal counties but those farther inland. That potential for impacts away from the coast, especially amid an uncertain forecast, was one of the main lessons learned from Matthew.

“There were no flooding fatalities in a county in North Carolina that touches saltwater,” said Blaes. “The news and the public focuses so much on the dunes and the surf zone, but in this case, so much of the damage and death happened inland.”

Of the 29 deaths attributed to the storm in North Carolina , 24 were due to drowning. In that regard, Matthew helped shift the focus for the National Weather Service in terms of hurricane impacts.

That started at the local office level. The damage in Cumberland County led NWS Raleigh to increase their involvement in areas like that during later storms.

“Matthew was one of the steps in realizing things we needed to do in a service aspect,” said Barrett Smith , the Senior Service Hydrologist at NWS Raleigh. “In Florence, we were sending people to places like Fayetteville to help.”

That increased coordination — with local municipalities, NC Emergency Management, the US Army Corps of Engineers, and others — has helped the National Weather Service and its partners better understand and respond to flooding threats, such as the dam failures during Matthew.

“Relationships with the National Weather Service helped people understand the risk, such as Wilmington and Morehead City using wording like ‘potential for the worst flooding since Hurricane Floyd in 1999’,” said Diana Thomas , a Meteorologist and Planner with NC Emergency Management.

“Groups huddled to discuss hot spot locations that would experience flooding, areas that may require evacuation, and pre-positioning resources in anticipation of major impacts that would affect life and property. These activities were improved in future storms including Hurricane Florence.”

At a larger scale, the National Hurricane Center has changed how it messages hurricane impacts on its website . 

“It used to focus mostly on the wind field and the track. Now on those web pages, rainfall is promoted more,” said Blaes.

In addition, the National Weather Service’s hydrology component has taken a step forward with the launch of the National Water Model , which can predict streamflow levels and velocities using high-resolution forecasts. 

While inland flooding may never get the attention that it deserves, the improved forecasts and coordination should increase awareness for the next storm, and that’s thanks to the lessons learned from Matthew.

Our infrastructure was due for an upgrade.

Some of the most unbelievable scenes during Matthew — and later, in Florence — were stretches of major highways and interstates completely under water, effectively turned into new river branches by the overwhelming flood waters.

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) manages roadways across the state, and the sheer scale of Matthew’s impacts presented a major response and recovery challenge.

First, there were the local roads that became impassable due to the flooding.

“That single storm had the most pipe washouts of any that DOT has dealt with,” said Stephen Morgan , the State Hydraulics Engineer.

In total, 728 drainage pipes were washed out during Matthew and more than 2,100 roads required repairs, per a USGS report about the storm. And that was only the start of the infrastructure impacts.

Rising flood waters in Fayetteville and Lumberton eventually reached the travel lanes of Interstate 95, closing a 60-mile stretch of the road for the weekend after Matthew, with some sections shut down for as many as 10 days.

That made a hypothetical successor to Floyd a reality for DOT, and much sooner than anyone may have expected given the statistical rarity cited for a storm like that.

“It’s one thing to talk about a 50-year, a 100-year, or a 500-year event, but when I-95 is closed for a week, it puts you in a different frame of mind,” said Morgan. “You’re telling people moving from north to south or south to north to avoid North Carolina or find a different way around.”

Flooding on the interstate in Lumberton was only one sign of a much larger problem in that area. Morgan said Interstate 95 effectively acts as a levee for the city, so as water spilled over the highway and through a railway underpass, it created the worst flood to that point in Lumberton’s history.

“There’s a transect of how our roadway system can move people and goods and services, but it also has some responsibility with protecting the public,” Morgan added. “The same thing happened with Floyd. A lot of places flooded that hadn’t flooded before, especially in vulnerable and less-affluent communities.”

Even as the water was subsiding and pipes were being replaced, DOT was already at work planning for the next storm, whether on the ground, in the office, or even in the cloud, technologically speaking.

Those organizational improvements started with better tracking DOT’s assets — a necessity, given the number that were damaged and needed to be replaced.

“The way we report, collect, and share that information has changed tremendously after Matthew,” said Andy Jordan , the State Hydraulics Operations Engineer. “The number of eyes on our current inventory has improved since Matthew. We know what we have on the ground, and we know what we have in our yards.”

Their move from spreadsheets into platform-based collaborative software now allows for simultaneous editing by multiple users and more easily sharing information and recommendations within divisions and with executive leadership.

Matt Lauffer , the State Hydraulics Design Engineer, said Hurricane Matthew also precipitated the development of new partnerships and tools for tracking flood-prone areas.

“We needed to be in the joint operations center with emergency management, so we went there during Florence and started the development of FIMAN-T,” said Lauffer, referencing a version of the Flood Inundation Mapping and Alert Network tool designed for transportation. It’s shown below visualizing the extent of flooding in Kinston from Hurricane Florence.

That collaboration has also included the development of three river basin studies of the Lumber, Neuse, and Tar rivers, with each outlining recommended mitigation strategies for the most flood-prone areas.

A separate partnership with the NC Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) and the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has produced a tool called DamWatch to help monitor potential dam failures like the ones seen after Matthew.

For areas such as Lumberton that were inundated in that event, changes are coming to reduce the likelihood of significant roadway closures during future storms.

“When those designs are completed and constructed by 2026, we will have raised I-95 high enough to maintain its mobility and connectivity during a storm like Florence,” said Lauffer.

Those advancements and modernizations to keep people and goods moving around the state might not have been possible — or necessary — if not for a storm like Matthew.

Flooding on farms can turn feasts to famines.

The agriculture industry in North Carolina has a can’t-live-with-them, can’t-live-without-them relationship with hurricanes.

In some areas, rainfall from tropical systems makes up nearly a fifth of the average warm-season precipitation — a figure that has almost certainly increased in the past decade thanks to storms like Matthew.

Years without that moisture can plunge into droughts, and farms tend to bear the brunt of that damage. During our 2007 drought that saw only one minor tropical storm in Gabrielle , the ag industry in North Carolina suffered losses of more than half a billion dollars.

But when a season’s worth of rain falls in less than a week, as in Matthew and Florence, farmers face a different set of challenges that can yield the same result: a loss of their livelihoods.

Matthew’s timing in early October effectively wiped out a summer’s worth of productivity for many crops in eastern North Carolina.

“The biggest impact that I can remember is the loss of whatever crops were in the field,” said Dalton Dockery , the Columbus County Extension Director for NC Cooperative Extension. “We still had crops like sweet potatoes, soybeans, cotton in the ground, and had just begun harvesting peanuts.”

Crop production data from the US Department of Agriculture shows the sort of hit that North Carolina farmers took that year. Compared to the drought-free 2014 growing season, the tobacco harvest was down by 27% in 2016 and the cotton harvest was 64% lower than two years prior.

In total, crop and livestock losses in the state due to Matthew were estimated at $400 million . That included 1.8 million chickens killed by the flooding.

Richard Goforth , a Specialized Area Poultry Agent with NC Cooperative Extension, was on the ground at poultry farms in Matthew’s wake to help with composting the mortalities. He said the lay of the land limited the steps farmers could take to protect their flocks.

“Down east, it’s so flat and low and level that we’re talking a foot to 18 inches of water is all it took to get inundated, and the birds are right on the ground level in the shavings on the floor,” Goforth noted.

After what had already been a wet summer in eastern North Carolina thanks to rain from tropical storms Hermine and Julia , soils were saturated and the additional water from Matthew had few places to go but piling up in the fields, poultry houses, and barns.

In advance of the storm, some poultry producers moved birds to houses or farms less likely to flood, while Dockery said other farmers prepared by doing “things like making sure ditches were clean, consulting with NRCS Soil & Water about what they could do in terms of addressing any drainage problems they may have.”

Those were lessons learned from Floyd, which was a billion-dollar disaster for North Carolina agriculture . However, Dockery notes that truly mitigating for storms of that magnitude is difficult.

“It’s basically the same land that is being planted on a rotational basis and there is no way to reshape all of that land for better drainage, or it would be extremely expensive to do,” he said.

“Even if they could, with that much water, I’m not sure that the results would have been any different.”

One way that Matthew was different than Floyd was in the spillover from wastewater lagoons — or the relative lack thereof. The Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado notes that 50 lagoons flooded and six were breached after Floyd, sending a surge of sludge into nearby waterways and, eventually, into the ocean.

During Matthew, flooding was limited to six lagoons and two breaches, both on a hog farm in Greene County, according to NC DEQ . Much of that reduction was thanks to measures taken since Floyd, including buyouts of 42 farms and the decommissioning of 103 lagoons located in floodplains, supported by the state’s Clean Water Management Trust Fund.

Following Florence, Goforth said cost-share funding became available to help poultry farmers relocate outside of floodplains, and some were taking advantage of it, especially on farms too old or too damaged to rebuild in the same spots.

The spate of recent storms has also taught hog farmers preventative steps to help reduce the risk of lagoon flooding.

“Efforts are made to lower the liquid levels of lagoons in a safe and approved method prior to hurricane arrivals, especially if they know in enough time to do so,” said Dockery.

But that’s the critical part: time . And there often isn’t enough of it for farmers.

After Floyd, they learned to run their tractors 24/7 to harvest as much of their crop as possible prior to a storm.

In the 48 hours before Matthew, the forecast shifted, leaving vulnerable farmers even less time to prepare.

For farmers — and others across North Carolina — the new question is what they’ll do in the time before the next storm hits.

It was a sign of things to come.

The wait for Matthew’s meteorological successor didn’t take 500 years or 50 years or even 17 years, like after Floyd.

Only two years later, Florence stripped away Matthew’s title as our worst flooding hurricane, with more than double its rainfall amounts and more than triple its damage bill — an estimated $17 billion , compared to $4.8 billion from Matthew.

For some even in the weather forecasting community, the accelerated rate at which these inland flooding hurricanes is occurring — now three within a 20-year period, from Floyd to Florence — has come as a shock.

“I was confident after Matthew I’d see no more huge floods like that one in my career, but after Florence I no longer have that confidence,” said Neuherz with NWS Wilmington.

“I guess the lesson was that even though you just had the big one, it doesn’t mean there isn’t another big one coming soon.”

From rain to river crests to costs, broken record after broken record, and big one after big one, flooding hurricanes are our future. And that future is happening now.

The North Carolina Climate Science Report , which summarizes changes in our climate and their impacts statewide, notes that “tropical cyclones are expected to produce heavier precipitation, and the strongest storms are projected to be even stronger in the future.”

Because of that, they establish that it’s likely — or at least a two-in-three chance of occurring — that increases in extreme precipitation will lead to increases of inland flooding in North Carolina. (The uncertainty is down to the circumstances of individual flooding events, such as the land over which the rain falls and the presence of antecedent moisture as with Floyd and Matthew.)

This assessment, and these recent storms, have already encouraged some groups across the state to rethink their future plans.

“Intensity is increasing from these events,” said DOT’s Lauffer, pointing to the Climate Science Report, which identified that those trends are expected to continue.

“We’ve learned a lot about climate and how it might be changing,” added Morgan. “Maybe that wasn’t a 100-year storm. Maybe that was a 25-year storm.”

After Matthew and Florence, the state Secretary of Transportation commissioned a flood resilience feasibility study for interstates 40 and 95. Its findings are already being implemented into design plans, such as building bridges to handle a 100-year flood event with an extra foot-and-a-half of freeboard to boot.

Identifying solutions isn’t as easy for all storm-affected groups across the state, but Matthew and Florence have at least forced folks like farmers to take note of our changing climate.

“I think they have an increased awareness that these storms are playing a major role in the general ag industry,” said Dockery. “They are more concerned about extreme precipitation events and how these events are affecting their farms, but they’re not quite sure what can be done about it, other than trying to fix land drainage issues.”

The widespread flooding and livestock losses in these events has certainly made poultry farmers pay attention.

“They’re keen that these events can strike areas that haven’t historically flooded, that are miles from a stream or river,” said Goforth. “They started being more proactive about knowing where the houses with a higher potential to flood were, and where houses that hadn’t previously flooded were in the floodplains.”

At the state level, more consideration is being given to help agriculture better weather these storms. As reported by the Coastal Review , the General Assembly approved legislation last year “to create an inventory of natural and working lands that could be used in flood control and potential incentives for private landowners to do stream restoration and wetlands enhancement and build flood-stage capacity.”

There’s a good reason for that focus on working lands such as farms and forests. A statewide 2017 greenhouse gas emissions study found that these areas “offset 25% of the state’s current greenhouse gas emissions,” or more than twice the average rate of other states.

The farm fields across North Carolina are our breadbasket, but they may be part of the key to managing and mitigating our future climate risks as well.

The recent storms beginning with Matthew have also gotten groups across the state working together more closely, from the Department of Transportation to NC Emergency Management to the National Weather Service to cities and towns that have borne the flooding impacts.

As Morgan from DOT put it, “one event brought together a lot of disparate ideas.”

From an emergency response standpoint, that collaboration has become a necessity.

“Matthew required a whole community approach to recovery,” said Thomas from NC Emergency Management. “The magnitude of the need required federal, state, local, private sector, and non-profit agencies to develop creative solutions to recovery and communication following large disasters. Results from this work include the State Disaster Recovery Task Force and a well-informed North Carolina Hurricane Guide .”

Those new partnerships should ultimately yield improved forecasts, communications, and infrastructure for future flood events.

Resiliency measures take time — there’s that word again, time — to be crafted and implemented, but they represent important steps in securing our state and our livelihoods against the impacts of flooding hurricanes.

Storm after storm, though, the aspects that aren’t as easily repaired are the broken hearts and broken lives of those they affect.

“To go visit a place after it floods is heart-wrenching,” said Blaes from NWS Raleigh. “Tornado surveys are one thing, but the flood water, the mold, the slime, the mud is everywhere. It’s emotional and it lasts so long.”

It has only been five years since Matthew, and parts of eastern North Carolina are assuredly still recovering: financially, structurally, emotionally.

With a little luck, a lot of cooperation, and a memory of the losses and lessons learned from Matthew, we’ll be better prepared to handle the next similar storm when — not if — it occurs.

Section header photos by NOAA via phys.org , the Fayetteville Observer , NWS Wilmington , NC DEQ via the Coastal Review , and NC DOT .

Advertisement

Hurricane Matthew (2016) and its impact under global warming scenarios

• Original Article
• Published: 17 January 2018
• Volume 4 , pages 97–109, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

• Mansur Ali Jisan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1651-3631 1 ,
• Shaowu Bao 1 ,
• Leonard J. Pietrafesa 1 ,
• Dongliang Shen 2 ,
• Paul T. Gayes 1 &
• Jason Hallstrom 3  

864 Accesses

14 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

A coupled atmosphere–ocean model was used to study the impact of future ocean warming, both at and below the water surface, on hurricane track and intensity and the associated coastal storm surge and inundation. A strong Saffir–Simpson Category-5 hurricane, Hurricane Matthew made landfall on the South Carolina (SC) coast of the United States (US) in September 2016 and was used as our study case. Future ocean warming was calculated based on the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5 scenarios. Validated setup of the model was used to simulate the changes in track, intensity, storm surge, and inundation of Hurricane Matthew under future climate ocean warming scenarios. Results showed that the future ocean warming could make the hurricanes stronger in intensity, which, in turn, will greatly increase subsequent coastal storm surge and inundation. For example, under the RCP 8.5 scenario, Matthew’s maximum wind speed would increase by 18 knots (12.97%), its minimum sea-level pressure would deepen by 26 hPa (2.78%), and the coastal area inundated would increase by 70.20% from that of the present day. Moreover, the increases in coastal surge and inundation could likely lead to a downstream blocking of upstream water systems, thereby exacerbating upstream lateral flooding as the rivers go into storage modes; but that potential is beyond the scope of this study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

(source is NHC). b Vortex location error (kilometers) calculated at 6-h intervals with respect to the NHCs observed track

Similar content being viewed by others

New Record Ocean Temperatures and Related Climate Indicators in 2023

Collapse and slow recovery of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) under abrupt greenhouse gas forcing

Role of Japan Sea Throughflow in the spatial variability of the long-term sea surface temperature trend

Balaji V, Numrich RW (2005) A uniform memory model for distributed data objects on parallel architectures. In: Use of high-performance computing in meteorology. World Scientific, pp 272–294

Bao S, Li X, Shen D, Yang Z, Pietrafesa LJ, Zheng W (2017) Ocean upwelling along the Yellow Sea coast of China revealed by satellite observations and numerical simulation. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 55(1):526–536. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2016.2610761

Article   Google Scholar  

Bender MA, Ginis I (2000) Real-case simulations of hurricane-ocean interaction using a high-resolution coupled model: Effects on hurricane intensity. Mon Weather Rev 128(4):917–946. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2000)128%3C0917:RCSOHO%3E2.0.CO;2

Chen F, Dudhia J (2001) Coupling an advanced land surface–hydrology model with the Penn State–NCAR MM5 modeling system. Part I: Model implementation and sensitivity. Mon Weather Rev 129(4):569–585. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2001)129%3C0569:CAALSH%3E2.0.CO;2

Cione JJ, Uhlhorn EW (2003) Sea surface temperature variability in hurricanes: Implications with respect to intensity change. Mon Weather Rev. https://doi.org/10.1175//2562.1

Google Scholar  

Das Y, Mohanty UC, Jain I (2016) Development of tropical cyclone wind field for simulation of storm surge/sea surface height using numerical ocean model. Model Earth Syst Environ 2(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-015-0067-5

Divins DL, Metzger D (2008) NGDC coastal relief model. National Geophysical Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce. https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/

Dudhia J (1989) Numerical study of convection observed during the winter monsoon experiment using a mesoscale two-dimensional model. J Atmos Sci 46(20): 3077–3107. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1989)046%3C3077:NSOCOD%3E2.0.CO;2

Dyer AJ, Hicks BB (1970) Flux-gradient relationships in the constant flux layer. Q J R Meteorol Soc 96(410):715–721. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49709641012

Emanuel KA (1987) The dependence of hurricane intensity on climate. Nature 326(6112): 483–485. https://doi.org/10.1038/326483a0

Emanuel KA (2003) Tropical cyclones. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 31. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.earth.31.100901.141259

Emanuel KA (2013) Downscaling CMIP5 climate models shows increased tropical cyclone activity over the 21st century. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(30):12219–12224. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1301293110

Emanuel KA, Živković-Rothman M (1999) Development and evaluation of a convection scheme for use in climate models. J Atmos Sci 56(11): 1766–1782. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056%3C1766:DAEOAC%3E2.0.CO;2

Emanuel K, Solomon S, Folini D, Davis S, Cagnazzo C (2013) Influence of tropical tropopause layer cooling on Atlantic hurricane activity. J Clim 26(7):2288–2301. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00242.1

Gualdi S, Scoccimarro E, Navarra A (2008) Changes in tropical cyclone activity due to global warming: results from a high-resolution coupled general circulation model. J Clim 21(20):5204–5228. https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI1921.1

Hill C, DeLuca C, Balaji V, Suarez M, Silva AD (2004) The architecture of the earth system modeling framework. Comput Sci Eng 6(1):18–28. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCISE.2004.1255817

Hong JSG, Lancaster MJ (2004) Microstrip filters for RF/microwave applications, vol 167. Wiley, New York

Jisan MA (2017) An ensemble study of the sea level rise impact on storm surge and inundation in the coastal Bangladesh. Dissertation, Coastal Carolina University

Jisan MA, Bao S, Pietrafesa LJ (2016) Investigating tropical cyclones and its related storm surge & inundation in coastal Bangladesh using a coupled atmosphere-ocean model [A43I-0382] presented at 2016 Fall Meeting, American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, CA, 12–16 Dec

Jisan MA, Bao S, Pietrafesa LJ (2017) Ensemble Projection of the Sea Level Rise Impact on Storm Surge and Inundation in the Coastal Bangladesh. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2017-216 (in review, 2017)

Kimura F, Kitoh A (2007) Downscaling by pseudo global warming method. In: Report of research projection on impact of climate changes on agricultural production system in arid areas, Kyoto, pp 43–46

Knutson TR, Tuleya RE, Shen W, Ginis I (2001) Impact of CO 2 -induced warming on hurricane intensities as simulated in a hurricane model with ocean coupling. J Clim 14(11):2458–2468. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014%3C2458:IOCIWO%3E2.0.CO;2

Knutson TR, Tuleya RE (2004) Impact of CO 2 -induced warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation: sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective parameterization. J Clim 17(18):3477–3495. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017%3C3477:IOCWOS%3E2.0.CO;2

Knutson TR, McBride JL, Chan J et al (2010) Tropical cyclones and climate change. Nat Geosci 3(3):157–163. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo779

Knutson TR, Sirutis JJ, Vecchi GA et al (2013) Dynamical downscaling projections of twenty-first-century Atlantic hurricane activity: CMIP3 and CMIP5 model-based scenarios. J Clim 26(17): 6591–6617. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00539.1

Lin II, Pun IF, Wu CC (2009) Upper-ocean thermal structure and the western North Pacific category 5 typhoons. Part II: Dependence on translation speed. Mon Weather Rev 137(11):3744–3757. https://doi.org/10.1175/2008MWR2277.1

Lin II, Pun IF, Lien CC (2014) “Category-6” supertyphoon Haiyan in global warming hiatus: Contribution from subsurface ocean warming. Geophys Res Lett 41(23):8547–8553. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061281

Lloyd ID, Vecchi GA (2011) Observational evidence for oceanic controls on hurricane intensity. J Clim 24(4):1138–1153. https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3763.1

Mlawer EJ, Taubman SJ, Brown PD, Iacono MJ, Clough SA (1997) Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmospheres: RRTM, a validated correlated-k model for the longwave. J Geophys Res Atmos 102(D14):16663–16682. https://doi.org/10.1029/97JD00237

Noh Y, Cheon WG, Hong SY, Raasch S (2003) Improvement of the K-profile model for the planetary boundary layer based on large eddy simulation data. Bound Layer Meteorol 107(2):401–427. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022146015946

Paulson CA (1970) The mathematical representation of wind speed and temperature profiles in the unstable atmospheric surface layer. J Appl Meteorol 9(6): 857–861. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1970)009%3C0857:TMROWS%3E2.0.CO;2

Price JF (1981) Upper ocean response to a hurricane. J Phys Oceanogr 11(2): 153–175. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1981)011%3C0153:UORTAH%3E2.0.CO;2

Rahaman KM, Ahmed FRS, Islam MN (2016) Modeling on climate induced drought of north-western region, Bangladesh. Model Earth Syst Environ 2(1):45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-016-0089-7

Sakib M, Nihal F, Haque A, Rahman M, Ali M (2015) Sundarban as a buffer against storm surge flooding. World J Eng Technol 3:59–64. https://doi.org/10.4236/wjet.2015.33C009

Sato T, Kimura F, Kitoh A (2007) Projection of global warming onto regional precipitation over Mongolia using a regional climate model. J Hydrol 333(1):144–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.07.023

Shay LK, Goni GJ, Black PG (2000) Effects of a warm oceanic feature on Hurricane Opal. Mon Weather Rev 128(5): 1366–1383. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2000)128%3C1366:EOAWOF%3E2.0.CO;2

Shen W, Tuleya RE, Ginis I (2000) A sensitivity study of the thermodynamic environment on GFDL model hurricane intensity: implications for global warming. J Clim 13(1):109–121. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2000)013%3C0109:ASSOTT%3E2.0.CO;2

Skamarock WC, Klemp JB, Dudhia J, Gill DO, Barker DM, Wang W, Powers JG (2005) A description of the advanced research WRF version 2. NCAR Tech Notes- NCAR/TN-468 + STR

Stewart SR (2017) National Hurricane Center Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Matthew (AL142016). http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL142016_Matthew.pdf . Accessed 7 Apr 2017

Stocker T (ed) (2014) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis: Working Group I contribution to the Fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Temam R (1984) Navier-stokes equations, vol 2. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp xii+-526

Vecchi GA, Fueglistaler S, Held IM, Knutson TR, Zhao M (2013) Impacts of atmospheric temperature trends on tropical cyclone activity. J Clim 26(11):3877–3891. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00503.1

Wang S, Camargo SJ, Sobel AH, Polvani LM (2014) Impact of the tropopause temperature on the intensity of tropical cyclones—an idealized study using a mesoscale model. J Atmos Sci 71(11):4333–4348. https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-14-0029.1

Wear DN, Greis JG (2012) The Southern Forest Future Project: summary report. General Technical Report SRS-GTR-168. USDA-Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville

Webb EK (1970) Profile relationships: the log-linear range, and extension to strong stability. Q J R Meteorol Soc 96(407): 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49709640708

Williams JJ, Esteves LS, Rochford LA (2015) Modelling storm responses on a high-energy coastline with XBeach. Model Earth Syst Environ 1(1–2):3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-015-0003-8

Yospin GI, Wood SW, Holz A, Bowman DM, Keane RE, Whitlock C (2015) Modeling vegetation mosaics in sub-alpine Tasmania under various fire regimes. Model Earth Syst Environ 1(3):16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-015-0019-0

Zhao M, Held IM (2010) An analysis of the effect of global warming on the intensity of Atlantic hurricanes using a GCM with statistical refinement. J Clim 23(23):6382–6393. https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3837.1

Zhao M, Held IM, Lin SJ, Vecchi GA (2009) Simulations of global hurricane climatology, interannual variability, and response to global warming using a 50-km resolution GCM. J Clim 22(24):6653–667. https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3049.1

Download references

Acknowledgements

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is acknowledged for undergirding this research effort. Coastal Carolina University’s (CCU) Cyber Infrastructure Project is used to perform the simulations in this study, which is funded by NSF Major Research Instrument under contract AGS-1624068. Two NSF awards supporting the investigations of the processes of storm-induced coastal surge and inundation and inland flooding are CNS-1541917 and CNS-1713922. The SC State Guard is acknowledged for encouraging that prognostic studies such as this be conducted, so that they may be better prepared for future environmental hazardous events. CCU is acknowledged for providing the facility computational time support for this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Coastal and Marine Systems Science, Coastal Carolina University, Conway, SC, 29526, USA

Mansur Ali Jisan, Shaowu Bao, Leonard J. Pietrafesa & Paul T. Gayes

Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai, China

Dongliang Shen

Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, 33431, USA

Jason Hallstrom

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mansur Ali Jisan .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Jisan, M.A., Bao, S., Pietrafesa, L.J. et al. Hurricane Matthew (2016) and its impact under global warming scenarios. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 4 , 97–109 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-018-0420-6

Download citation

Received : 09 November 2017

Accepted : 06 January 2018

Published : 17 January 2018

Issue Date : April 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-018-0420-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Ocean warming
• Storm surge
• Climate change
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Privacy Policy & Terms of Use
• Terms & Conditions

Case Study – Hurricane Matthew

SAFEY sent alerts to all users in Hati, Bahamas, Cuba, and the east coast of the

United States. Multiple warnings were sent prior to the storm making landfall, and advice was provided. The SAFEY Emergency System sends advice on how to prepare and what to do during a hurricane, as many travelers may not be prepared for hurricane emergency procedures.

Our advice to travelers:

Know the difference.

• Hurricanes/Typhoon/Tropical Storm Watch – Conditions are a threat within 48 hours. Review your storm plans. Get ready to act if a warning is issued, and stay informed
• Hurricanes/Typhoon/Tropical Storm Warning – Conditions are expected within 36 hours. Complete your storm preparations and leave the area if directed to do so by authorities

If a tropical storm/hurricane/typhoon is likely in your area, you should:     

• Monitor news sources and this safety service for information
• Close storm shutters/windows and secure outdoor objects or bring them indoors
• Avoid using the phone, except for serious emergencies.

You should evacuate under the following conditions:

• If you are directed by local authorities or advised by this safety service to do so. Be sure to follow the instructions of local authorities.

If you are unable to evacuate, go to a wind-safe room. If unavailable, follow these guidelines:

• Stay indoors during the hurricane and away from windows and glass doors
• Close all interior doors – secure and brace external doors.
• Keep curtains and blinds closed. Do not be fooled if there is a lull; it could be the eye of the storm – winds will pick up again.
• Take refuge in a small interior room, closet or hallway on the lowest level.
• Lie on the floor under a table or another sturdy object.
• Avoid elevators.

After a tropical storm/hurricane you should:

• Continue monitoring Weather news, local news and this security information service for the latest updates.
• Stay alert for extended rainfall and subsequent flooding even after the hurricane or tropical storm has ended.
• If you evacuated, return home only when officials say it is safe
• Drive only if necessary and avoid flooded roads and washed out bridges. Stay off the streets. If you must go out watch for fallen objects; downed electrical wires; and weakened walls, bridges, roads, and sidewalks.
• Keep away from loose or dangling power lines.
• Stay out of any building if you smell gas.
• Use battery-powered flashlights in the dark. Do NOT use candles
• Avoid drinking or preparing food with tap water until you are sure it’s not contaminated.
• Use the telephone only for emergency calls

Recent Posts

• Coronavirus Tracker Launched Today
• Coronavirus
• October 2019 Preview
• August 2019 in Review
• Modi’s Kashmir gambit stokes fears of more violence

• 0 Shopping Cart

Coastal Management at Mappleton Video

Share this:.

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

Free Geography Infographic

Over the past few months, we’ve been developing a range of infographics covering common case studies in geography. The infographics provide a summary overview of the main features of each case study and are available as A3 PDFs and resizable .png graphics. The infographics can be printed for wall displays, collated into revision booklets and sent home with students to decorate their bedroom walls for revision.

Infographics often prove so effective in educational contexts because they use  imagery to highlight, explain, or enhance text-based information. They have the unique ability to capture attention, convey information, and encourage data retention despite their complex nature.

Our eight sets of geography infographics are available for free to Internet Geography Plus subscribers or can be purchased from our online shop .

Following a recent request from an Internet Geography Plus subscriber, we’ve just created an infographic covering Hurricane Matthew. We’ve made this available to download for free below.

Download Hurricane Matthew PDF

Hurricane Matthew .png Image

If you’re an Internet Geography Plus subscriber and have an infographic request please contact us .

Christchurch Earthquake Animated Map

Christchurch earthquake map is a fantastic resource for illustrating the swarm of earthquakes that occurred on February 22nd 2011, when 185 people were killed as the result of a magnitude 6.3 quake.

To access the resources head over to the  Christchurch earthquake map

Next, click February 22, 2011 under quick links (on the left of the page). The animation will start automatically. The magnitude and depth of the earthquakes are illustrated using coloured proportional circles.

2011 Christchurch Earthquake Map

You can speed up and slow down the animation using the media controls to the top right of the page.

We’ve recently added Christchurch earthquake case study resources on Internet Geography.

Extreme Weather in the UK Summer Heatwave 2018

Soufrière hills volcano, montserrat, west indies, geography case study, please support internet geography.

If you've found the resources on this site useful please consider making a secure donation via PayPal to support the development of the site. The site is self-funded and your support is really appreciated.

Search Internet Geography

Top posts and pages.

Latest Blog Entries

Pin It on Pinterest