Mitigation is an ongoing function of emergency management that
involves preventing hazards from developing into disasters and reducing
the effects of disasters when they do occur. Examples of mitigation
include implementing building codes and land-use legislation,
constructing flood levees and dams, and providing insurance coverage in
disaster-prone areas. In this module, we will provide you with the
opportunity to visit each of the concepts behind mitigation and to learn
strategies for fashioning a mitigation program.
In the United States, natural and man-made disasters result in the
loss of hundreds of lives and billions of dollars in property damage
each year. These disasters include hurricanes, tornadoes, floods,
earthquakes, and other incidents. The table below highlights the ten
severest incidents in terms of dollar loss that have occurred since the
birth of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1979:
Table 2.1
FEMA’s Most Expensive Presidentially Declared Disasters
Event and States Involved
Year
FEMA Funding ($)
Hurricane Katrina* (FL, LA, MS, AL)
2005
29,318,576,948
Attack on America, World Trade Center (NY, NJ, VA)
2001
8,818,350,120
Northridge Earthquake (CA)
1994
6,978,325,877
Hurricane Rita (TX, LA)
2005
3,749,698,351
Hurricane Ivan (LA, AL, MS, FL, NC, GA, NJ, PA, WV, NY, TN)
2004
2,431,034,355
Hurricane Georges (AL, FL, MS, PR, VI)
1998
2,245,157,178
Hurricane Wilma (FL)
2005
2,110,738,364
Hurricane Charley (FL, SC)
2004
1,885,466,628
Hurricane Andrew (FL, LA)
1992
1,813,594,813
Hurricane Frances (FL, NC, PA, OH, NY, GA, SC)
2004
1,773,440,505
*approximately 68 percent funded
Based on information from FEMA, 2006, FEMA Web site
During the 1990s, FEMA provided over $25 billion in disaster
assistance across the United States. In the same decade, the economic
impact of disasters worldwide exceeded $600 billion (Haddow &
Bullock, 2006, p. 57). As table 2.1 illustrates, the costs to FEMA in
the first half of this decade have already exceeded those of the 1990s,
even with Hurricane Katrina alone. Considering the rising costs of
emergency management, it is important to recognize that we can achieve
substantial savings through mitigation, and that we have a continuing
need to educate public officials at all levels of government about this
critical function of emergency management.
FEMA began emphasizing mitigation about a decade ago as a means of
lessening the effects of a disaster. Here are the three main ways in
which mitigation contributes to safety, in FEMA’s words:
1. “It creates safer communities by reducing loss of life and
property damage. For example, the rigorous building standards adopted by
20,000 communities across the country are saving the nation more than
$1.1 billion a year in prevented flood damages” (FEMA, 2007, FEMA Web
site).
Examples of such building standards include elevated structure
regulations, material use restrictions, and setback requirements for
waterfront construction.
2. “It allows individuals to minimize post-flood disaster disruptions
and recover more rapidly. For example, homes built to NFIP [National
Flood Insurance Program] standards incur less damage from floods. And
when floods do cause damages, flood insurance protects the homeowner’s
investment, as it did for the more than 200,000 Gulf Coast residents who
received more than $23 billion in payments following the 2005
hurricanes” (FEMA, 2007, FEMA Web site).
The NFIP, however, does not mitigate every type of hazard. Because
the NFIP makes payments only in response to flood damage and not to
destruction caused by hurricane winds, some homeowners in the areas
affected by Katrina are still debating with the agency over whether or
not they should receive reimbursement. Additionally, large numbers of
homeowners choose to gamble with nature and not to purchase NFIP
insurance.
3. “It lessens the financial impact on individuals, communities, and
society as a whole. For example, a recent study by the Multihazard
Mitigation Council shows that each dollar spent on mitigation saves
society an average of four dollars” (FEMA, 2007, FEMA Web site).
It is often difficult to convince legislators of the importance of
this type of investment, especially at the local level, and the person
with this responsibility is the emergency manager.
In module 1, we examined the types of natural and man-made hazards
most likely to threaten the lives and property of communities in the
United States. Now, we will introduce you to some of the tools that
emergency managers use to identify, assess, and minimize the effects of
hazards on their communities.
Part 2: Concepts of Mitigation
Mitigation is defined as any sustained action taken to eliminate
or reduce the long-term risk to human life and property from natural or
man-made hazards. The rising costs of disaster response and recovery
have led to a renewed focus on mitigation within the emergency
management community.
The prevention or minimization of a disaster significantly reduces
the financial burden of recovery. The emergency management organization
must recognize that a dollar spent today will help reduce human
suffering and financial loss tomorrow. Mitigation also decreases the
economic losses that often follow a disaster from the destruction of
property, the loss or interruption of jobs, and the closing or disabling
of businesses and essential governmental services.
Communities can perform an almost infinite number of actions to
support mitigation. For example, a community can intercept and act on
the hazard itself. Seeding hurricanes and other weather events,
triggering avalanches, and creating fire breaks may eliminate or reduce
the severity of a disaster before it spirals out of control. Communities
can also redirect hazards through such actions as constructing seawalls
or initiating dune restoration programs to help push water away from
the vulnerable areas of a community. Another mitigation strategy is to
enforce safety regulations to improve the ability of buildings and other
structures to withstand violent storms and earthquakes.
Of course, the perfect mitigation strategy is to eliminate the hazard
altogether. River corridor projects benefit floodplains while
relocating structures to less vulnerable locations. Law enforcement and
rescue organizations can protect the community from crime and fire. On a
macro level, intelligence programs can abort or neutralize threats.
Mitigation possibilities are almost limitless, and are bounded only by
the imagination and determination of the community and its emergency
manager.
Hazard Analysis
Before you, as an emergency manager, can determine which mitigation
measures to implement, you will need to evaluate the hazards that most
threaten the safety of your community’s citizens and their property. You
must conduct a hazard analysis of the community. This involves the
following steps (Haddow & Bullock, 2006, pp. 53–54):
1. identify and characterize the hazards
2. evaluate each hazard for its severity and frequency
3. estimate the risk
4. determine the potential direct and indirect social and economic effects and costs
5. determine an acceptable level of risk
6. identify risk-reduction opportunities
1. Identify and Characterize the Hazards
In module 1, we listed types of natural and man-made hazards that can
affect our communities. The first step you will need to take in
conducting a hazard analysis is to assess each of these hazards and to
determine whether or not they put your community at risk.
For example, earthquakes rarely affect the East Coast of the United
States, and so pose a minimal (but not totally absent) risk to the
communities along that coast.
However, the East Coast is subject to severe storm systems, including
tornados, thunderstorms, tropical storms, and hurricanes. If you live
on the East Coast, you will need to assess the hazards associated with
these types of incidents. For example, hurricanes pose a risk of high
winds, flooding, and structural collapse.
2. Evaluate each Hazard for its Severity and Frequency
The next step you will need to take is to quantify each of the
hazards identified in step 1 in terms of its severity (impact) and
frequency.
In terms of emergency management, frequency is the measurement of how often an event occurs—several times each year, once per year, once every ten years, etc. Severity is
the measurement of the damage to property and/or the loss of life
caused by an event. You may choose a scaling factor to assess severity,
such as none, minimal, moderate, or severe;
or you may chose another factor. Although not absolute indicators of
risk, the factors and figures you obtain in analyzing frequency and
severity will help you to assess the likelihood and impact of a
particular event.
In developing its mitigation plan, Anne Arundel County, Maryland,
identified twenty-seven hazards that could affect the county (Anne
Arundel County Citizens Information Center, 2004, Anne Arundel County
Web site). The county estimated the potential number of occurrences
(frequency) and the potential impact (severity) of each, identifying
extreme heat and public health emergencies as quadrant D (high
frequency, high impact) concerns. These hazards required the most
immediate mitigation actions.
During this step, some organizations develop a graphic representation
of the severity and frequency of potential hazards. You can see one
type of assessment grid in figure 2.2:
Figure 2.2
Risk Assessment Model
Probability
Impact
Emergency managers using the grid above would assign each hazard to a
quadrant based on its probability of occurrence (frequency) and its
impact (severity). Hazards assigned to quadrant A inspire the lowest
level of concern, as they have a low frequency and a low level of
impact. Conversely, any hazard assigned to quadrant D causes the highest
level of concern, as it has both a high frequency and a high level of
impact. Hazards assigned to either quadrant B or C engender a moderate
level of concern.
Using a graphic model such as the one above enables the emergency manager to prioritize planning and mitigation efforts.
In figure 2.3, we apply information from the Anne Arundel County
mitigation plan to our risk assessment model to rank some hazards that
could affect the citizens of this area:
Figure 2.3
Anne Arundel County, MD Risk Assessment Model
Probability
Impact
You can see that extreme heat and public health emergencies have a
high probability of occurrence and a high level of impact in Anne
Arundel County, and that they should take priority in mitigation
planning. Earthquakes, civil disturbances, and severe winter storms,
however, are not likely to cause much damage, and should not take up too
many mitigation resources. The county should put a moderate amount of
resources into mitigating terrorist attacks and riverine flooding.
3. Estimate the Risk
In module 1, we defined risk as the susceptibility of an
individual or community to personal injury or loss of life; property
damage or destruction; or economic loss. In this step, you will need to
determine the risk to your community from each type of hazard: how many
people could be affected? What property could suffer damage or
destruction? What critical facilities or public infrastructure could
need repair or reconstruction? This step will help you to identify the
areas most at risk.
You will then be able to focus planning and mitigation efforts on
those areas. The Anne Arundel County mitigation plan identified extreme
heat as a key risk based on the occurrence of seven high-heat episodes
in the four years prior to the study. The assessors also identified the
population most vulnerable—those citizens who cannot afford artificial
cooling. Such assessments enable emergency managers to give the
community members most at risk the resources they need to prevent
illness or injury.
4. Determine the Potential Direct and Indirect Social and Economic Effects and Costs
In module 1, you had the opportunity to review the effects of
disasters on a community, both direct (financial and economic) and
indirect (sociological and political). Now, with the information gained
from the first three steps of your hazard analysis, you will need to
quantify the potential impact of a disaster on your community.
Anne Arundel County emergency personnel know that the most serious
effect of extreme heat is a high number of deaths. A population count of
those most at risk aided the county in establishing mitigation
procedures.
5. Determine an Acceptable Level of Risk
Once you understand the potential risks (steps 1 and 2) as well as
the potential impact (steps 3 and 4) of an event in your community, you
will have to accept that no amount of mitigation will guarantee that an
incident will not occur and that it will not cause damage, injuries, or
deaths. You will then want to assess what level of risk may be socially
or politically acceptable, and make your recommendations to the senior
official in your jurisdiction. Ultimately, he or she will have to decide
what constitutes “acceptable risk.”
In Anne Arundel County, the Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
deemed it appropriate to ignore potential damage to roads as a result of
high heat. Mitigation efforts focused on at-risk populations, with a
general awareness approach for other populations.
6. Identify Risk-Reduction Opportunities
The final step in your risk analysis is to identify opportunities to
reduce risk through preventive measures and mitigation strategies. You
will use all of the information you collected in the steps above to
focus and prioritize your planning and mitigation efforts.
Anne Arundel County identified six strategies to handle the extreme
heat problem. In order from highest- to lowest-priority, here are the
strategies (Anne Arundel County Citizens Information Center, 2004, Anne
Arundel County Web site):
1. initiate an extreme heat education and awareness campaign
2. create a database to track populations at risk from extreme heat
3. increase tree-planting among public rights-of-way
4. create plan for establishing cooling centers and shelters
5. cooperate with news outlets to distribute information about extreme heat
6. create partnerships with organizations who can donate fans for heat relief
The county conducted similar risk assessment studies and developed
similar mitigation approaches for each of the other twenty-six hazards
identified in the plan.
Questions to Consider
1. For which hazard is your home or community at the highest risk?
2. What types of damage are most likely to occur in the event of an incident involving that hazard?
3. What steps can your community take to reduce the damage from an incident involving that hazard?
4. How will you know if those mitigation measures have succeeded?
This last question is a particularly difficult one, and often, there
is no clear answer. This issue also confronts those who provide
emergency warnings. If they give a warning and the incident in question
does not occur, did they preempt the incident, or was it not going to
occur in the first place? Mitigation efforts often carry with them the
same ambiguities. In the final analysis, often the only thing the
emergency manager can do is to use his or her “best judgment.”
Ongoing Action
A hazard analysis is a good way to initiate mitigation procedures,
but it is important to note that mitigation is an ongoing process that
cannot be touched upon once and then forgotten. FEMA defines hazard mitigation as
“sustained action that reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people
and property from natural hazards and their effects” (Haddow &
Bullock, 2006, p. 57). Mitigation represents a partnership among
federal, state, and local governments; businesses; and individuals; and
it includes all actions taken to lessen damages to people, property, and
resources before a disaster strikes.
One goal of mitigation is to break the cycle of emergency management,
as an incident prevented will not require the activation of the other
functions, especially response, and recovery. Because mitigation focuses
on long-term solutions to reducing risk, it is often treated separately
from the other functions in the cycle, performed in advance of an
emergency incident or disaster.
Mitigation, though, proves extremely beneficial when performed in
conjunction with
the other functions of the emergency management cycle.
During the preparedness phase, emergency personnel should integrate
mitigation planning (preventive actions) with the planning for response
and recovery. During the actual response and recovery phases, personnel
should make key decisions during cleanup and reconstruction to minimize
the impact of a similar disaster.
Part 3: Mitigation Strategies and Programs
Here, we will discuss tools for and impediments to mitigation, as well as federal mitigation programs.
Tools for Mitigation
All the actions required for a successful mitigation program can seem
overwhelming. Fortunately, tools can assist in performing these tasks.
As the overall goal of mitigation is to reduce the level of risk
associated with a disaster or emergency, we classify the tools available
to the emergency manager as risk analysis tools (tools to assess the risk) and risk reduction tools (tools to minimize the risk).
Risk Analysis Tools
Risk analysis tools enable the emergency manager to assess the
potential for damage to property as a result of a disaster in the
community. Risk analysis tools include mapping and hazard identification
mechanisms.
As discussed above, the first step in determining appropriate
mitigation strategies is to identify the hazards that threaten the
safety of citizens and their property. This involves generating maps
showing areas at risk from specific types of natural or man-made
hazards. Fortunately, the federal government has developed tools to
assist the emergency manager in completing this task. Federal programs
map almost every type of hazard. The NFIP engages in detailed floodplain
mapping. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) provides mapping to
support earthquake and landslide hazard analyses.
Mapping is a good place to start during a hazard analysis, but the
use of maps alone limits the assessment process. Maps can only provide
so much information. Also, they are typically generated in response to a
single type of hazard, whereas emergency managers often need to assess
the impact of multiple types of disasters. Fortunately, mapping
technology continues to improve. Each new generation of maps provides
more human factor information in addition to the traditional topographic
and structural data. Just as importantly, we are now able to locate
places with a very high degree of accuracy.
For example, the following hazard map from the USGS could help you
make a rough assessment of the potential for earthquake damage in your
area:
Figure 2.4
Earthquake Hazard Map of the United States
Source: USGS, USGS Web site
The West Coast of the United States has the highest risk of an
earthquake, with a slight risk on the East Coast. However, the area with
the highest risk of loss to life and property from an earthquake is in
the Midwest. The New Madrid fault runs through a large portion of this
region (touching parts of Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois, and
Tennessee), and has the potential to give rise to a truly catastrophic
earthquake.
Technology has helped us to overcome many of the limitations of
hazard mapping. Computer-generated geographic information systems (GIS)
now integrate mapping and data with hazard-specific information. GIS
mapping does not concern itself so much with maps as with the
information that one can put into them. GIS takes a standard map and
overlays it with data from multiple databases (some with static data and
some with real-time data inputs) that depict hazards and potential
areas of impact. GIS mapping can show the geographic details of a
community, along with information on man-made features such as
buildings, roads, and population clusters.
Risk Reduction Tools
Risk reduction tools are the primary tools used in mitigation. Risk reduction tools include
all of the actions taken by the emergency manager to remove or minimize
the risk of and potential for damage to property as a result of a
disaster in the community. To reduce risk, we must consider the hazard
and/or threat, the potential for damage or loss of life, and the overall
needs of the community.
The following are some risk reduction tools available to you as an emergency manager. Click on each link to read more.
1. design and construction standards
2. structural controls
3. land-use planning
4. public education and awareness
5. financial incentives
6. insurance
7. prevention
Impediments to Mitigation
One of the challenges of the emergency management organization is to
give sufficient attention to mitigation. Quite often, the organization
will be so focused on building capabilities for response that it will
ignore its mitigation responsibilities. In this section, we will review
several impediments to mitigation efforts. These include
· denial of risk
· political will
· costs and lack of funding
· the taking issue
Denial of Risk
Even though most emergency managers perform hazard assessments, many
are reluctant to admit that their community is at risk, as businesses
may refuse to locate in the area, or developers build in the region. To
some degree, this attitude is changing. Emergency managers recognize
that they are subject to more liability for not admitting potential risk
than for admitting risk and planning for an appropriate response in the
event of a disaster.
Political Will
Politicians focus on programs with short-term benefits—benefits that
will become visible during their terms of office, and for which they can
claim responsibility. Mitigation programs need to concentrate on the
long term, and many politicians are unwilling to support them if they
will not lead to immediate improvements.
Costs and Lack of Funding
Mitigation costs money, and with so many programs competing for
funding these days, preventive measures are often among the first to be
cut. The federal government supports many of these programs, with
requirements for state and local matching funds. Government at all
levels must therefore make budgeting decisions to provide adequate money
for mitigation programs.
The Taking Issue
Because many mitigation programs require the acquisition of privately
owned property, the government must often make payments to property
owners. In some cases, this may result in long, drawn-out legal battles,
as the property owner and the government debate the issue of fair
compensation.
Cases related to eminent domain, or the power of the state to
seize private property, are replete with social and political conflict.
If possible, eminent domain should be treated as a last resort. For
example, the forced evacuation of residents from an area affected by
annual flooding can cause fierce controversy, as many of those residents
may not be able to afford homes in nearby areas.
Federal Mitigation Programs
Through its Mitigation Division, FEMA holds responsibility for a
variety of programs designed to help state, tribal, and local
governments implement mitigation procedures. Assistance ranges from
providing technical aid to administering grant programs to fund
mitigation initiatives. Much of the authority for these programs comes
from the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
of 1988 (the Stafford Act), as amended by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.
The Disaster Mitigation Act permits the federal government to provide
technical and financial assistance to state and local governments to
identify and implement mitigation programs. As a condition of receiving
funding, state, local, and tribal governments must submit a mitigation
plan that identifies the hazards affecting their area and that outlines
strategies to reduce damage.
Federal Mitigation Assistance Grant Programs
FEMA administers five mitigation assistance programs that provide
grants to state and local governments. Although each program has
different requirements, all five have the common goal of reducing life
and property loss. These grant assistance programs are as follows (FEMA,
FEMA Web site):
1. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
2. Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program
3. Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program
4. Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) program
5. Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) program
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
Authority: Section 404 of the Stafford Act
Purpose: to provide funds to states, territories, tribal
governments, and communities to significantly reduce or permanently
eliminate risk to lives and property from natural hazards
Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program
Authority: Section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act
Purpose: to implement cost-effective measures to reduce or
eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured
homes, and other structures insured under the NFIP
Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program
Authority: Section 203 of the Stafford Act
Purpose: to provide funds to states, territories, tribal
governments, and communities for hazard mitigation planning and the
implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event
Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) Program
Authority: Section 1323 of the Flood Insurance Reform Act (FIRA)
Purpose: to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood
damage to structures insured under the NFIP that have had one or more
claim payment(s) for flood damages
Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Program
Authority: Section 1361a of the FIRA
Purpose: to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood
damage to residential properties that suffer severe repetitive loss, and
the associated drain on the National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF) from
such properties
Federal Mitigation Technical Assistance Programs
FEMA is also responsible for administering technical assistance
programs to help state and local governments manage mitigation. Here are
four such programs:
1. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
2. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)
3. National Dam Safety Program (NDSP)
4. National Hurricane Program (NHP)
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The NFIP reduces property loss from flooding in two ways. First, it
stipulates that participating states and communities develop and enforce
floodplain management regulations. Secondly, it enables property owners
in participating states and communities to purchase insurance as a
protection against flood losses.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)
Congress established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program (NEHRP) in 1977 to reduce damage to life and property from
earthquakes. The NEHRP provides funding for research in earthquake
science and engineering.
The NEHRP has four major goals (FEMA, 2007, FEMA Web site):
1. develop effective practices and policies for earthquake loss reduction, and accelerate their implementation
2. improve techniques to reduce seismic vulnerability of facilities and systems
3. improve seismic hazards identification and risk-assessment methods and their use
4. improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects
National Dam Safety Program (NDSP)
State and local governments manage safety programs for approximately
80,000 dams across the United States. The federal government has
supported the states and provided programs for dam safety for over
twenty-five years. In 1996, these programs became part of the National
Dam Safety Program (NDSP). The Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002
amended the provisions of the NDSP, authorizing its continuance for an
additional four years and adding certain provisions for dam safety
against terrorist actions.
National Hurricane Program (NHP)
The National Hurricane Program (NHP) arose in 1985 to provide
technical assistance to state and local governments in conducting hazard
assessments and developing hurricane evacuation plans. The program is a
partnership between FEMA, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Association (NOAA), NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS), the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE).
The NHP provides assistance for the following (FEMA, 2007, FEMA Web site):
· safe and effective evacuations
· national hurricane program training
· hurricane response and recovery
· post-storm assessments
· hurricane loss mitigation
Part 4: Defining a Framework for Mitigation
Successful mitigation programs require teamwork among federal, state,
and local governments and the public. In our final discussion, we will
review the roles of each of these partners in planning, funding, and
implementing mitigation programs.
Roles and Responsibilities of the Federal Government
The role of the federal government in responding to an emergency
varies from distant observer to response agency. The federal government
recognizes the sovereign rights of states as guaranteed in the Tenth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and considers the response to an
emergency a local issue until a state requests federal assistance.
However, recognizing the growing need for financial aid for response,
recovery, and reconstruction after a disaster, the federal government
has increased its support for state and local mitigation efforts. This
commitment is best illustrated by the provisions of the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000, as discussed in the previous section.
This legislation authorizes the federal government to provide
technical assistance and financial support to state and local
governments to plan and implement mitigation programs. The federal
government may also establish legal and policy procedures to ensure that
all state and local governments implement mitigation programs in a
consistent manner. Despite these provisions, emergency management
ultimately falls under state and local control.
Roles and Responsibilities of the State Government
As noted above, the U.S. Constitution provides states with the power
to create reasonable legislation to protect the health, safety, and
general welfare of the public. States have the authority to develop
mitigation programs. The federal government provides technical
assistance and financial incentives to help states to identify and
implement these programs.
Following the regulations and guidelines provided by the federal
government, states may draft laws to manage environmentally sensitive or
hazardous areas. Each state’s Emergency Management Office (EMO)
appoints a State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) to identify and set
into motion mitigation programs. States may differ in their approaches
where hazards dictate specific controls or where the political climate
influences land-use legislation.
Roles and Responsibilities of the Local Government
Whenever reasonable, states may delegate a portion of their public
safety authority and responsibility to local jurisdictions. At a
minimum, local governments have the authority and right to enact laws to
enforce land-use restrictions, zoning and permit requirements, capital
improvement programs, and other regulatory actions.
Because affected local communities suffer more than the state as a
whole after a disaster or emergency, it is important for them to make
mitigation planning a cornerstone of emergency management for their
jurisdiction. Local enforcement of property-use regulations is critical
in preventing and reducing loss of property and life in the event of a
disaster or emergency.
Roles and Responsibilities of the Public
At the heart of a community’s resiliency are its citizens. It is each
citizen’s responsibility to be aware of the hazards that may endanger
his or her property or life, and to participate in local planning
activities to minimize the effects of disasters or emergencies on the
community. After Hurricane Katrina, it became painfully clear that the
public was poorly prepared to take action even after major storm
warnings. Local citizens, businesses, and governments must participate
in joint planning activities to bolster their communities in the face of
disaster.
Part 5: Summary
In this module, we introduced you to the emergency management
function of mitigation. Mitigation involves a significant amount of
planning and assessment to determine the hazards that place your
community at risk, and the actions you can take to mitigate the effects
of those hazards. Mitigation requires a long-term commitment from state
and local government in terms of both financial