Effective Hazard Mitigation Are Local Mitigation Strategies Getting

  • Slides: 18
Download presentation
Effective Hazard Mitigation: Are Local Mitigation Strategies Getting the Job Done? Jane E. Rovins,

Effective Hazard Mitigation: Are Local Mitigation Strategies Getting the Job Done? Jane E. Rovins, MPH, CEM, FPEM Tulane University 11 th FEMA Higher Education Conference Emmitsburg, MD June 2008

Can planning mitigate this?

Can planning mitigate this?

Hazard Mitigation Reduction of vulnerability and susceptibility to loss (life and property) as a

Hazard Mitigation Reduction of vulnerability and susceptibility to loss (life and property) as a result of a disaster

Planning • Previous planning studies – Urban planning – Land use plans – Comprehensive

Planning • Previous planning studies – Urban planning – Land use plans – Comprehensive plans • Little agreement in the planning community on what makes a good plan • Always a good thing

Mitigation Planning • Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council study • Godschalk 409 study • Issues –

Mitigation Planning • Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council study • Godschalk 409 study • Issues – Literature found to be lacking – Warrants more research

Purpose To investigate whether continued investment in mitigation planning under the current framework is

Purpose To investigate whether continued investment in mitigation planning under the current framework is effective in protecting vulnerable populations and preventing future loss of property as a result of a disaster

Variables • • • Counties declared Declaration date Disaster type Governor / President Median

Variables • • • Counties declared Declaration date Disaster type Governor / President Median home value Median household income • Plan status • Population – Disabled – Elderly – Under 5 years • Property damage • Unemployment

Study Area • Local Mitigation Strategies • State mandated • Rule 9 G 22

Study Area • Local Mitigation Strategies • State mandated • Rule 9 G 22 • Variety of events • Variety of size • Availability of data

20, 000. 00 U. S. Dollars Mean DAMAGE TOTALS 30, 000. 00 10, 000.

20, 000. 00 U. S. Dollars Mean DAMAGE TOTALS 30, 000. 00 10, 000. 00 No Plan Approved Plan PLAN STATUS

Hazard Summary Hazard # of Events # of Declared Counties % Fire 1 67

Hazard Summary Hazard # of Events # of Declared Counties % Fire 1 67 11. 9 Flood/Severe Storm 4 64 11 316 56. 3 Tropical Storm Tornado 7 64 11. 3 1 1 0. 2 Winter Storm/Freeze 1 49 8. 7 Hurricane

Hazard Summary (cont. ) Hazard Per Capita Damage Plan - NO Plan - YES

Hazard Summary (cont. ) Hazard Per Capita Damage Plan - NO Plan - YES Fire $69. 34 66 1 Flood/Severe Storm $62. 32 60 4 $123. 28 69 247 Tropical Storm Tornado $24. 72 33 31 $21. 89 0 1 Winter Storm/Freeze $25. 92 4 45 Hurricane

Findings • Median Home Value – no significant relationship • Income and education support

Findings • Median Home Value – no significant relationship • Income and education support mitigation • Political affiliation • Plan Status

Damage Rebuilding Are Local Mitigation Strategies Getting the Job Done?

Damage Rebuilding Are Local Mitigation Strategies Getting the Job Done?

Recommendations • Policy – Require mitigation – Plan quality – Incorporation

Recommendations • Policy – Require mitigation – Plan quality – Incorporation

Future Research • • Effectiveness of DMA plans Other hazards Review process Cost effectiveness

Future Research • • Effectiveness of DMA plans Other hazards Review process Cost effectiveness

Conclusion

Conclusion

Questions? Jane E. Rovins, MPH, CEM, FPEM jane. rovins@gmail. com

Questions? Jane E. Rovins, MPH, CEM, FPEM jane. rovins@gmail. com