0% found this document useful (0 votes)

66 views40 pages

Introduction To Emergency Management - (Chapter 10 Mitigation)

Uploaded by

김효은

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

66 views40 pages

Introduction To Emergency Management - (Chapter 10 Mitigation)

Uploaded by

김효은

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 40

Chapter 10

Mitigation

10.1 C hapter Objectives

Upon completing this chapter, readers should be able to:
1. Understand the general ideas and purposes behind mitigation.
2. Know the types of structural mitigation actions that can be taken for
various hazards.
3. Explain the advantages and disadvantages of structural mitigation.
4. List the different types of non-structural mitigation that can be
undertaken to reduce hazard losses.
5. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of non-structural mitigation.
6. Outline key steps that can be taken to conduct mitigation planning.
7. Identify job and volunteer opportunities in the field of mitigation.
8. Be sufficiently motivated to undertake mitigation steps in their own
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

homes and workplaces.

10.2 Introduction
Mitigation means engaging in efforts that lessen the impact of disaster. Most
of us see and even use aspects of mitigation during our everyday lives. For
example, levees along rivers help prevent flooding. The use and enforcement
of local codes help buildings withstand high winds or earthquakes. While

327

Phillips, Brenda D., et al. Introduction to Emergency Management, CRC Press LLC, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unist-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1446654.
Created from unist-ebooks on 2021-09-27 03:13:20.
328 Introduction to Emergency Management

mitigation is not the phase of disaster management that most people find
exciting, it is the phase in the life cycle that can dramatically influence who
lives and dies, which buildings survive, and the length and cost of recovery.
Most mitigation efforts can be placed into two different categories: struc-
tural mitigation and non-structural mitigation. Structural mitigation refers
to physical changes to the built environment that lessen disaster impacts.
Examples are building dams and levees to prevent flooding, hardening
facilities to withstand the impact of a terrorist attack, and designing bridges
to endure severe shaking. Non-structural mitigation efforts change human
behavior about disasters. Examples of non-structural mitigation include
public education programs focusing on tornado warnings, local land use
planning that turns floodplains into parks rather than housing develop-
ments, and practicing good hygiene during cold and flu season. In this
chapter, we learn about these examples and how communities engage in
mitigation planning to reduce impacts. Much of this behind-the-scenes
work pays off when disaster strikes and people are not harmed nor build-
ings destroyed.
Although always a part of the four phases of disaster, people often prefer
to focus on issues of preparedness, response, or even recovery. However,
mitigation efforts save lives and significantly reduce economic losses. Let’s
look at a few early examples in the U.S. In 1966, Presidential Executive
Order 11296 required federal agencies to reduce floodplain development.
Floodplains are areas where rivers and creeks may rise over their banks and
inundate homes, businesses, and public facilities. By setting them aside or
identifying means to reduce floodplain effects, people experience reduced
risks. In the 1960s and 1970s, a variety of legislative acts addressed flood
insurance, coastal management, and disaster relief as a means to reduce
the costs of disasters (Godschalk et al. 1998). In 1980, FEMA created its
first interagency hazard mitigation teams. As the 1980s progressed, FEMA
partnered with various states on hazard mitigation projects, providing up to
50% of the costs.
In the 1990s, mitigation emerged as a key federal priority during the early
years of the Clinton Administration. At that time, the U.S. government had
a large debt and President Clinton made debt reduction a priority. He asked
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

each cabinet member to find ways for reducing the deficit. James Lee Witt,
the new director of FEMA, drew on his experience as a local disaster coor-
dinator and state director of emergency management in Arkansas to make a
recommendation to the president. Witt knew that mitigation efforts resulted
in less money spent than the costs of a disaster response or recovery effort.
Accordingly, Witt suggested that the federal government support local miti-
gation programs. Witt’s efforts resulted in a number of related activities that
gained support from most of the emergency management community.

Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, FEMA’s focus changed
back to preparedness and response issues. However, the mitigation impera-
tive still exists within FEMA and provides important resources to commu-
nities attempting to minimize disasters including guidance for mitigation
planning and funding hazard mitigation grants. We will look at these topics
later in the chapter. First, we define and illustrate the two main kinds of
mitigation initiatives: structural and non-structural measures.

10.3 S tructural Mitigation

Structural mitigation centers on the built environment. Some structural
mitigation measures prevent a hazard from rolling into a disaster. Examples
include dams to hold back water, levees alongside waterways, hardening
a facility by adding blast-resistant windows for tornadoes, and installing
concrete barriers against intrusion. As seen in Figure 10.1, the Galveston
(Texas) seawall stretches seven miles along the island shoreline. Reaching
seventeen feet high, the wall affords some mitigation against storm surges.
However, hurricanes, storm surges, and wind damage do not always respect
such efforts as demonstrated when Hurricane Ike struck the area in 2008.
But the event inspired additional mitigation efforts—a common result after
a disaster. People and officials seem most motivated after a disaster occurs to
prevent damage from happening again. Before a disaster, it can be very chal-
lenging to get the public excited about reduction of the effects. Those who
pursue such efforts are often considered champions of uncelebrated causes
(see Box 10.1; Meo, Ziebro, and Patton 2004).
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

FIGURE 10.1 Galveston Seawall built after the 1900 hurricane when nearly 8,000
residents died. (Source: FEMA News Photo/Bob McMillan.)

BOX 10.1 GILBERT F. WHITE,

“FATHER OF FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT”

Gilbert White. (Source: University Communications, University of Colorado

Boulder. With permission.)
Gilbert F. White, known worldwide as the “father of floodplain manage-
ment,” joined the University of Colorado (CU) Boulder faculty in 1970 as a
professor of geography and director of the Institute of Behavioral Science
where he remained active in academic work into his 90s. He founded CU’s
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, the nation’s

leading repository of knowledge on human behavior in disasters, in 1974.
White’s work in natural hazards changed the way people deal with nature
and made the world safer to inhabit. “Floods are ‘acts of God,’ but flood
losses are largely acts of man,” he wrote in 1942 in his doctoral disserta-
tion, which has since been called the most influential ever written by an
American geographer.
Today planners tend to look at the landscape the way White did, consid-
ering a broad range of alternatives to cope with floods including land use

planning, upstream watershed treatment, flood-proofing buildings, insur-

ance, emergency evacuation, and dams and other structures.
White was born on November 26, 1911 in Hyde Park, Illinois and earned
undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University of Chicago. He
studied the Mississippi River Basin for the federal government as a gradu-
ate student in the late 1930s, when many planners followed a flood control
policy based on the construction of dams. White questioned the impacts of
such projects and suggested alternatives that protected people as well as
floodplain ecosystems.
After leaving the federal government in the 1930s, White never again had
to apply for a job, according to Robert E. Hinshaw, a former college presi-
dent who wrote a biography of White. And he never again worked for the
federal government although he could easily have held positions of global
importance, according to Hinshaw.
“He has refused to let himself be drawn into a government position that
would force him to use a more formal decision-making process” and his
personal beliefs were behind that decision, said Hinshaw, who also chaired
the CU Denver anthropology department from 1982 to 1984.
White chaired the American Friends Service Committee from 1963 to
1969 and his Quakerism is a vital part of his life, said Hinshaw, who also is
a Quaker. White’s leadership style is consistent with the Religious Society
of Friends’ traditional consensus-building process, he said. That leader-
ship style was highly effective in White’s efforts to deal with contentious
water issues in the Middle East from 1996 to 1999, and also in leading a
task force that led to the establishment of the National Flood Insurance
Program. White made lasting contributions to the study of water systems in
developing countries, global environmental change, international coopera-
tion, nuclear winter, and geography education.
White served as the Gustavson Distinguished Professor Emeritus of
Geography at CU Boulder and was a member of the National Academy of
Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the Russian
Academy of Sciences. His numerous awards include the nation’s highest
scientific honor, the National Medal of Science, presented in 2000. Among
White’s numerous other honors are the National Geographic Society’s high-
est award, the Hubbard Medal, the United Nations’ Sasakawa International
Environmental Prize, and the Association of American Geographers’
Lifetime Achievement Award. He received an honorary doctorate from CU
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

Boulder in May 2006.

“The world is a better place for having had Gilbert in its midst,” said
Jane Menken, director of the Institute of Behavioral Science and a dis-
tinguished professor of sociology. “Gilbert was that rare combination—a
distinguished scientist and an outstanding humanitarian committed to
translating scientific evidence into policy and programs to better people’s
lives. His was a life to celebrate.”
“We will always remember Gilbert, not only as a man of science and
humanity, but as the person who set IBS on its present course and whose

leadership and friendship were always accompanied by wisdom and enlight-

enment,” said Richard Jessor, a founder and former director of the Institute
of Behavioral Science and a CU Boulder distinguished professor of behav-
ioral science.
FEMA Director David Paulison and Federal Flood Insurance Administrator
and FEMA Mitigation Director David Maurstad, concurred: “Mr. White was
a pioneer in a field which protects people and their homes,” said Director
Paulison. “At a time when the mainstream thought was to build bigger and
stronger flood control devices, Mr. White was investigating creative—and
effective—methods that promoted safety, but not at the cost of damaging
rivers and waterways. His legacy is a program that keeps people safe, pro-
tects the environment and makes smart investments in mitigation activities
at all levels of government” (FEMA 2006, Release HQ-06-145).
More information about White is posted on the CU Boulder Natural
Hazards Center’s Web site (http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/gfw/ ).
Additional news releases about White can be found at http://www.colorado.
edu/news/tributes/white.
Source: Courtesy of University Communications, University of Colorado
Boulder. With permission.

10.3.1 Planned Environment
The involvement of various offices in communities in mitigation-related
work is therefore a good thing. Many communities, for example, require
stormwater drainage planning, and you should be able to observe those
efforts where you live. Nature always had plans for when and where rains
will flow. From a systems theory perspective (see Chapter 2), people do not
always respect what Mother Nature intended and build homes on beautiful
coastlines, along recreational lakes and rivers, and on or near floodplains.
Stormwater drainage planning serves as an important step in designing
a neighborhood or community. Water flows differently after a structure is
built. To ensure that rainfall flows where it needs to go and is directed into
drains that flow to waterways requires careful planning. Ideally, communi-
ties will respect areas of high rainfall that show propensities for flooding.
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

However, flooding represents the top hazard in many nations including the
U.S. and we have a long way to go to work with nature in this area.
Other examples of planned environments are physical structures such as
dams and levees. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers typically takes respon-
sibility for creating major projects that increase safety from flooding. Across
the nation, thousands of such structures—large, small, and even make-
shift—exist. In many areas, local and state governments shoulder respon-
sibility for dam and levee maintenance. Private citizens are accountable for

structures on their lands. Dams and levees must be maintained over time to
ensure safety and maintenance requires expertise and funding. In difficult
economic times or in less affluent areas, this task may be difficult to impos-
sible. Consequently, the state of our mitigation infrastructure requires atten-
tion. To illustrate, consider that the American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE 2009) awarded D grades to our dams nationwide. ASCE defines high
hazard dams as those with potential to cause considerable risk to life and
property. Thousands of such locations exist across the U.S. according to the
ASCE, and most of the responsibility for maintenance and repair lies at
the state government level. ASCE estimates that billions of dollars annually
are needed for repairs.
Hard choices are often required to put structural mitigation measures
into place. The levee failure in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina rep-
resents a measure that failed to protect, in large part because political and
economic choices had to be made about how much could be spent on the
levee protection system, where to place the structures, and how much to
spend to maintain them. The pre-Katrina system provided protection from
a Category 3 storm. Katrina pushed a Category 5 surge into the levee system
even though winds had fallen to Category 3.

10.3.2 Elevations
Another example of a structural mitigation measure is an elevation
(Figure 10.2). Raising homes and businesses above the level of a likely
flood or hurricane-related storm surge may allow their occupants to return
quickly after minimal damage from water. Without such a measure, they
may face months to years away from homes and businesses before recon-
struction occurs. Unfortunately, elevation levels are often determined
(or recalculated) after an event when people have already sustained damage.
By assessing flood levels, new codes can be put into place for rebuilt or newly
built structures. Elevating them out of harm’s way considerably reduces the
economic impact even though relocation out of a flood-prone area is ideal.
People have good reasons for staying where they live and work, as will be
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

seen in an upcoming section. For them, elevation may serve as the single
best option. The cost, though, may make elevation difficult to afford; with-
out elevation residents will find it harder to return home.
By now, it should be clear that a structural mitigation such as elevation
above flooded areas is a hazard-specific measure rather than all-hazards
approach. As another example, consider the options for protecting people
in tornado alley. Safe rooms, typically underground or in the interior of
a structure, represent relatively affordable options for many people. For

FIGURE 10.2 Louisiana home elevated after Hurricane Rita. (Source: Courtesy of
Mennonite Disaster Service. With permission.)
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

FIGURE 10.3 Tornado safe rooms require concrete walls and a special ceiling
frame. (Source: FEMA News Photo/Kent Baxter.)

building an above-ground safe room, it is best to follow careful guidelines

(see FEMA Publication 361; Figure 10.3) although going underground
remains the best protection. For those unable to afford options, some com-
munities are working with local, state, and federal funding to build congre-
gate shelters (Figure 10.4).

FIGURE 10.4 Newcastle (Oklahoma) built a 7,200-foot facility with a FEMA grant.
The structure provides congregate protection for 900 people. (Source: FEMA News
Photo/Win Henderson.)

10.3.3 Building Codes
Many communities also enact building codes and require developers,
builders, and homeowners to secure permits, undergo inspections, and
comply with the codes. Such rules exist to increase public safety although
builders and developers occasionally fight them because of the added cost
of complying. In areas of hurricane threats, for example, hurricane clamps
may be placed to decrease the potential for wind damage to or loss of a
roof. When portions of a roof blow away, they become dangerous missiles
that cause further damage. By installing relatively inexpensive clamps, we
increase not only our own safety and recovery but that of others around
us. Another option at the community level is to install utility lines under-
ground to reduce damage from storms and ice although this step is not
feasible in areas subject to flooding—the most common type of disaster
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

in the U.S.
Despite the massive destruction and loss of life from flooding due to
Katrina, it is evident that developing nations and impoverished areas fare
far worse in comparable events. Following on the premise that disasters
generate disproportionate and unequal effects, consider the earthquakes
of 2010. The Haiti earthquake, measured as a 7.0 event was far less pow-
erful than the 8.8 earthquake that rumbled through Chile. Approximately

800 people died in Chile while approximately 300,000 perished in Haiti.

Considerable differences exist between the two nations; the main differ-
ence is ability to afford and enforce mitigation. Population density in areas
close to the quakes also made a difference. The Haiti earthquake struck a
highly populated capitol city. Chile dedicated considerable resources and
expertise to increasing infrastructure and building safety through careful
design and strict building codes. Despite enduring one of the most powerful
earthquakes ever recorded, Chile survived far better than Haiti. Questions
remain about how nations such as Haiti will ever be able to enhance mitiga-
tion for their population. Without external assistance it is likely that con-
siderable risk will remain. An even more powerful question concerns where
that help will come from. Failing to help nations like Haiti and even impov-
erished areas in our own nation constitutes an inherent determination that
some populations are expendable.

10.3.4 Retrofit
Obviously, many communities contain older structures that may not meet
current building codes. In those cases, it may be possible to retrofit the
dwellings, apartment buildings, or business locations. Retrofitting can vary
from extensive overhauls involving highly engineered solutions to easily
introduced, affordable, but not as powerful elements. Retrofitting may not
be easy because of the need for installations within interior walls, floors, and
ceilings; this is an expensive proposition.
An excellent example of a pre-disaster earthquake retrofit occurred at the
University of California Berkeley. The university conducted a hazard assess-
ment and loss estimation because of the very real probability of earthquake
damage from the Hayward Fault (Comerio 2000). The assessment included
examining soil maps, the potential for ground shaking, and the positions of
various campus buildings. The team looked at how faculty and students used
the buildings and when the peak numbers of occupants would be inside.
They also considered occasional, rare, and very rare earthquake events. A
rare event of a 7.0 magnitude (using the Richter scale then) would cause the
university to disrupt normal schedules for two years. A very rare event of
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

7.5 magnitude would close the campus completely for a year, affecting 8,900
university and community jobs with associated losses of $680 million in
personal income and $861 million in related sales. Staggering numbers and
widespread potential losses!
Where would you start to mitigate such impacts? Berkeley determined
that seventeen buildings represented about 75% of the university’s exter-
nally generated research funds. Because research funds keep universities
economically sound and represent their missions, administrators deter-
mined that a twenty-year timeline to retrofit buildings would be needed

and set aside $1 billion for projects. The University of California Berkeley
is not alone in facing threats. Hurricane Katrina prompted the Department
of Homeland Security to provide $92 million for rebuilding the Southern
University at New Orleans. FEMA allotted $26 million to the University of
Southern Mississippi’s Gulf Park campus. The choice is quite clear: pay now,
or pay later. By paying pre-disaster mitigation costs, future and repetitive
losses can be reduced.

10.3.5 Advantages of Structural Mitigation

The benefits of implementing structural mitigation measures should be
obvious. In short, lives are saved. The costs of rebuilding homes, infrastruc-
ture, and buildings are lessened. People return home faster, commute to
work, and continue to earn livelihoods. Insurance companies do not have
to raise premiums to offset payments. The psychological impacts of injuries
and grief from living in tents or temporary housing and trying to under-
stand why an event even occurred diminish more quickly. Mitigation dem-
onstrates resilience of the built environment, made possible through human
choices, in a way that ensures returning to normal quickly.
Mitigation also means that we may be able to live where we want to, along
those beautiful seashores and in pine-laden mountains. All areas where
people live are subject to hazards and associated risks, making hazard
adjustment through mitigation a smart thing to do. In areas of repetitive
losses, structural mitigation measures are required or people will simply
have to leave the area—which may actually be the best answer (see upcom-
ing section on relocations).
Consider also, that structural mitigation measures have some side bene-
fits. Have you enjoyed boating, fishing, or skiing on a lake created by a dam?
Recreational opportunities abound in such locations and generate tourist
income for the local economy too. Dams can also produce electricity. Large-
scale hydroelectric dams provide enormous amounts of power for commu-
nities and smaller facilities can power specific industries. Such dams do not
come without controversy, however, as some have been charged with caus-
ing damage to ecosystems, particularly riparian habitats with native flora
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

and fauna. The advantages of structural mitigation are always offset by the
disadvantages and hard choices must be made by those affected and those
who serve the public.

10.3.6 Disadvantages of Structural Mitigation

Disadvantages accompany the clear benefits of mitigation. The most com-
mon critique concerns the high costs of structural mitigation. The costs to
rebuild the New Orleans area levee system presently hover around $10 billion

and are expected to exceed that amount. Even when the levees are considered
fully rebuilt, they likely will not afford 100% protection from the same kind
of storm as Katrina. Simply stated, decisions have to be made about levels
of protection. Deciding that level initiates tension across communities and
among those outside the area who fund projects through their tax dollars.
Choices to rebuild structural mitigation measures and at what level come
with harsh realities that no single protection is perfect, even in an area as
historic, culturally rich, and economically important as the major port city
of New Orleans. Conversely, there will always be events whose effects exceed
the designs of structural mitigation measures. Putting a levee into place for
a 100-year flood event sounds good—until a 500-year event comes along.
Making choices about mitigation means considering the risks faced and
determining what is feasible. Few would want the task of leading such a
daunting yet important effort.
Other consequences may result as well. People may place their faith in
structural mitigation measures that could result in risking their lives. People
stay in areas subject to flooding because levees or seawalls exist. Experienced
homeowners and those unfamiliar with the area including tourists who do
not know any better sometimes remain in areas at risk. Rather than evacu-
ating before a massive tornado outbreak, homeowners huddle in hallways,
believing the walls and roof will hold or that the twister will miss them. We
also tend to put off mitigation measures because disasters are simply not
forefront in our daily lives, and we assume we can get around to mitigation
later. Box 10.2 presents guidance for what you can do now for hazard protec-
tion in your area.

10.3.7 Successful Structural Mitigation Efforts

Successful structural mitigation efforts reduce risks to lives, livelihoods, and
structures but success may be hard to measure. Mitigation efforts put into
place may take years or even decades to provide payoffs. The Nisqually earth-
quake of February 28, 2001 struck the Seattle, Washington area. The earth-
quake, measured at 6.8 magnitude on the Richter scale caused damage to
twenty-two counties. About 40,000 people applied to the federal government
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

for aid, and the government reported that 50% of property damage occurred
when chimneys failed. Nonetheless, the earthquake stands as an example of
how mitigation measures put into place years earlier paid off with less dam-
age than anticipated. Realizing an earthquake could occur again and dam-
age could be reduced even further, FEMA launched a mitigation hotline to
provide information to homeowners on how to minimize future risks.
A non-profit organization called the Cascadia Region Earthquake
Workgroup offered conferences and seminars for businesses. Among
those responding to mitigate future risks were Starbucks and the Boeing

BOX 10.2 HOUSEHOLD CHECKLIST FOR MITIGATION ACTION

Personal responsibility for life safety and material possessions falls into
your hands. To your best abilities possible, integrate these mitigation mea-
sures into your household:
1. Purchase insurance to offset losses even if you are a renter. Can
you really afford to replace your car, furniture, computer, school-
books and clothing?
2. Know area hazards. What is the local history of those hazards?
3. Determine risk. What are the probabilities that you will face those
hazards at some time? Low, medium or high? Contact your local
emergency management agency for advice.
4. Develop a preparedness kit. See Chapter 6 for more detail on this.
5. Practice protective actions such as earthquake drills and fire
escapes to deal with wildfires, tornadoes, and other disasters.
6. Place copies of valuable documents, photos, and medical histories
in secure locations outside your home.
7. Initiate hazard-specific mitigation. A sampling of what you can find
do is listed below.

Earthquake Mitigation
•• Establish a preparedness kit specific to your needs that includes
water, food, and medications for at least three days.
•• Know how to shut off utilities in your home. Keep appropriate
tools to do so on hand.
•• Brace furniture with brackets to reduce the possibility it will fall
over and injure someone.
•• Relocate hanging plants, large pictures, and frames that can
cause injuries.
•• Install latches on cupboard doors to prevent contents from fall-
ing out.
•• Secure breakable items, especially those on higher shelves.
•• Support family members with disabilities in their mitigation
measures to ensure their safety as well.

Flood Mitigation
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

•• Elevate your home if feasible.

•• Do not build, buy, or rent in or near a floodplain.
•• Elevate the furnace, heater, air conditioner, generator, electrical out-
lets, and other valuable home elements that may easily be dam-
aged in a flood.
•• Seal basement walls.
•• Look around your home. Based on local history of flooding events,
what could be the highest possible height of flood waters in your
home? What items below that line can you not bear to lose or

replace? Purchase insurance or move irreplaceable items to a

safer location.

Wildfire Mitigation
•• Establish a safe perimeter around your home. Maintain at least a
three-foot space between the side of your home and landscaping.
More space is even better. Tear down vines that can catch fire near
your home or roof.
•• Remove dead branches, leaves, shrubs, and other vegetation that
can easily catch fire. Ensure that branches are at least fifteen feet
away from chimneys.
•• Keep your lawn no higher than two inches.
•• Eliminate landscaping that is highly combustible. Check with area
experts to determine which vegetation is a local fire concern.
•• Keep firewood at least 100 feet away from your house.
•• Stay alert for wildfire and no-burn ban messages. Wildfire condi-
tions can cause unexpected ignitions that spread rapidly.
•• Be prepared to evacuate when told to do so.
•• Prepare family members, pets, and livestock for rapid evacuation.
These suggestions represent a distillation of advice from various sites.
They should be considered minimum steps in the right direction. Additional
research and action on your part is advised. Information can be found at the
websites listed here and throughout the text. Many checklists and guidance
brochures are available at www.fema.gov, www.ready.gov, www.redcross.
org, and other reputable sites.

Corporation. Prior to the earthquake, most businesses engaged in general

all-hazards mitigation, particularly non-structural efforts as described next.
Post-earthquake, businesses increased some mitigation measures. They
were more likely to do so if they took mitigation steps before the earthquake
and remained worried after the event (Meszaros and Fiegener 2004).
Disasters prompt public attention and wise emergency managers use that
time period to enhance mitigation efforts. After a series of tornadoes tore
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

destructive paths across Oklahoma in 1999 and killed forty-four people,

the federal and state governments launched initiatives to install interior or
underground safe rooms. With grants available up to $2,000, homeown-
ers moved quickly to build the safety features. Newly built homes with safe
rooms sold rapidly. Funded through the federal Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program, the result was one of the most successful intergovernmental miti-
gation partnerships in history. To this day, the state continues its efforts to
encourage residents and builders to install tornado safe rooms (http://www.
eeri.org/mitigation/files/resources-for-success/00089.pdf).

10.4 N on-Structural Mitigation

Non-structural mitigation also lessens disaster impacts. To define non-
structural mitigation, think of actions people can take to reduce the impacts
of area hazards. In most cases, changing behavior toward hazards can be
less expensive and more effective than structural mitigation. One example
of non-structural mitigation is to prevent building homes in a 100-year
floodplain by setting aside that property for open space or parkland. When
parkland floods, the water does not damage homes and residents suffer no
deaths, injuries, or economic losses. Activities such as softball or soccer may
be cancelled and may have to wait until the fields dry out. Non-structural
mitigation thus involves making choices about how and where we build,
how we manage land, and how we reduce potential losses via personal and
collective actions. Although the line between structural and non-structural
mitigation often blurs, it is important to note that both types of efforts play
integral roles in risk reduction.

10.4.1 Land Use Planning

Land use planning is a future-oriented activity representing a proactive
behavior rather than an action that results from a disaster impact (Godschalk,
Kaiser, and Berke 1998). Land use planning typically involves two specific
elements: location and design (Burby 1998). A first step is to limit build-
ing in hazardous locations. A second step determines the best design of a
structure. For example, even if you disallow building in or near floodplains,
homes may still be subjected to severe storms and high winds. A structure’s
ability to resist damage is critical.
While land use planning makes sense in terms of disaster risks, it has
not always been supported by public officials and developers. A city council
member may “get into a bind” trying to determine whom to support: city
planners, developers wanting to invest in the community, or their constitu-
ents who may want to live in a desirable but hazardous location. In contrast,
experts suggest that we think through the concept of creating sustainable
communities “where people and property are kept out of the way of natural
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

hazards, where the inherently mitigating qualities of natural environmental

systems are maintained, and where development is designed to be resilient
in the face of natural forces” (Godschalk et al. 1998b, p. 86). As we will see in
an upcoming section on mitigation planning, creating a sustainable commu-
nity with reduced risks from disasters requires not only assessment of risks
alongside technical expertise but—importantly—community participation.
An imperative first step is to connect mitigation planning with land use
planning. Often, the two efforts operate separately. Imagine, for exam-
ple, a land use planning team designating an area for development when

a mitigation planning team determines it should remain as open space to

divert stormwater runoff. A related problem that disconnects the two is that
mitigation planning often happens once with periodic (if ever) updates to
the plan. Land use planning typically occurs in five- to ten-year cycles. The
lack of overlap between them sometimes means that two very important
partners are not always at the same table.

10.4.2 Building Codes and Enforcement

Earlier, we learned about the value of building codes that establish require-
ments for the built environment. Writing and enforcing the codes falls
under the category of non-structural mitigation because those tasks require
human involvement in making decisions and following through to ensure
that builders and developers meet new code requirements. Code develop-
ment and enforcement are usually conducted by city planning offices and
code inspectors with influences from residents, builders, and city officials.
City planners take on existing and new building construction, hoping to
design a built environment that is culturally meaningful, environmentally
sound, pleasing to residents, and acceptable visually.
Their work is certainly enjoyable as it allows for creativity as well as
actions to serve the public. But their work can also be contentious as they
try to find a common ground among what builders, developers, homeown-
ers, and public officials think best, economical, and desirable. In recent
years, for example, high pitched roofs have been popular, yet the pitch can
determine whether a tornado takes the roof off or not. Flat or low pitched
roofs face collapse from heavy snowfalls. Similarly, cedar shingle roofs were
popular but represent significant threats during wildfires. Telling people
they cannot make the choices they want to make or are considered aestheti-
cally desirable can be challenging. Nonetheless, those who enforce codes
clearly involve themselves in public safety.
Enforcing the codes serves as another example of the work in a public
office. The degree to which the enforcement is maintained has been ques-
tionable in some areas. After Hurricane Andrew tore off roofs across south-
east Florida in 1992, it was clear that codes did not account adequately for
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

wind speeds (Ayscue 1996). To their chagrin, public officials watched as tele-
vision crews filmed inside homes where nails clearly failed to attach the roofs
to rafters—a problem inspectors should have caught during construction.
Allegations of bribery and corruption abounded. Andrew claimed the lives
of forty-one people and damaged 117,000 homes (90% within Dade County
which includes the city of Miami; see Ayscue 1996). Stronger building codes
(structural mitigation) coupled with code enforcement (non-structural
mitigation) through inspections during construction could have made
a difference.

After a disaster, people take greater interest in new codes as planners,

engineers, and architects look for ways to mitigate future damages. Most
communities take advantage of the moment to write new codes and enforce-
ment typically increases. Additional challenges emerge as people want to
rebuild and return home and may not be able to do so quickly. After an
earthquake struck Santa Cruz, California in 1989, people who wanted to
rebuild on nearby hillsides were denied permits because of a drought. Based
on the earthquake and drought, it was unclear whether homes could be
rebuilt safely on the hills. Similarly, some areas along the U.S. Gulf Coast
have experienced slow rebuilding after the 2005 hurricanes. Costs to elevate
homes, particularly in low-income areas, burdened families beyond their
abilities to recover. Because many of these areas are home to indigenous pop-
ulations who work in the fishing industries, real threats to their continued
ability to remain in places with historic and economic value have emerged.
New codes may displace others too. Some communities have chosen to dis-
allow mobile home parks after a tornado due to widespread destruction.
Although the effort to ensure safer housing is laudable, concern remains
over the availability of affordable housing. Most students understand this
conundrum: you want to live in a safe place but you still have to pay the
rent. When decisions to build safer housing are made, it is also necessary
to ensure that people do not lose their homes. The reality is that affordable
housing may not be rebuilt.

10.4.3 Public Education
How frequently do you wash your hands every day? Such a simple act can
significantly reduce your risk of catching a cold or the flu—and greatly
diminishes your chances of spreading germs. Think about it. How many
surfaces have you touched today? How many doorknobs and banisters? How
many hands have you touched. How many people have you hugged? Have
you exchanged money to buy coffee today? Each exchange transmits bac-
teria that can cause illness. Unless you have a week or two to spare during
this academic term, maybe you should wash your hands and use an alcohol-
based hand gel (see Box 10.3). And just so you are up to date, be aware that
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

sneezing or coughing into your elbow is the recommended protocol rather

than into your hands!
Many local and state governments launch hazard awareness events
designed to catch your attention. Hopefully you have increased your aware-
ness of personal hygiene needs by this point but how aware are you of exactly
what to do and where to go should events warrant? Have you signed up for
message services via your cellular devices or social media? How much atten-
tion do you pay when readiness messages come on television, through social
media, or across your email? Communicating risk to the public and expecting

BOX 10.3 HOW DO YOU WASH YOUR HANDS?

When should you wash your hands?
•• Before, during, and after preparing food
•• Before eating food
•• After using the toilet
•• After changing diapers or cleaning up a child who has used the toilet
•• Before and after caring for someone who is sick
•• After blowing your nose, coughing, or sneezing
•• After touching an animal or animal waste
•• After touching garbage
•• Before and after treating a cut or wound

What is the right way to wash your hands?

•• Wet your hands with clean running water (warm or cold) and apply
soap.
•• Rub your hands together to make a lather and scrub them well; be
sure to scrub the backs of your hands, between your fingers, and
under your nails.
•• Continue rubbing your hands for at least twenty seconds. Need
a timer? Hum the “Happy Birthday” song from beginning to end
twice.
•• Rinse your hands well under running water.
•• Dry your hands using a clean towel or air dry.
Washing hands with soap and water is the best way to reduce the number
of germs they carry. If soap and water are not available, use an alcohol-
based hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol. Alcohol-based
hand sanitizers can quickly reduce the number of germs on hands in some
situations, but they do not eliminate all types of germs. Hand sanitizers
are not effective when hands are visibly dirty.

How should you use hand sanitizer?

•• Apply the product to the palm of one hand.
•• Rub your hands together.
•• Rub the product over all surfaces of your hands and fingers until
your hands are dry.
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

For more information on hand washing, visit CDC’s Handwashing: Clean

Hands Save Lives Website. You can also call 1-800-CDC-INFO or email
[email protected] for answers to specific questions.
Source: Centers for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/Features/
HandWashing/ (a related video is available at the site).

them to take the recommended actions can be challenging. Because of the

diversity within any community, sending messages can be time-consuming
but ultimately rewarding. No one should die or be injured because he or she
does not speak the local language or understand written communications.
The most effective way to transmit public education involves spread-
ing accurate information through trusted networks. Using local organi-
zations, faith-based locations, schools, and other facilities can increase
the chance that people will pay attention because the information comes
from places they frequent and from people they know. Placing informa-
tion into the daily lives of people through the technologies they use and
the places they visit also increases the chances of reaching the target
populations. Design public education efforts to be transmitted through
senior centers, for example, and ensure that messages are spread via tele-
vision, radio, and Internet channels they prefer. Be aware that abilities to
hear and interpret information vary greatly so public education efforts
must reach a wide range of literacy levels and span languages present in
a given community (Morrow 2010). It is not enough to give someone a
brochure. By involving family, friends, neighbors, and others in sharing
and reviewing brochure information you can increase understanding and
retention. As the massive blizzard of February 2011 began its race east-
ward across thirty U.S. states, local emergency managers in Oklahoma
used call-down lists to warn people to stay off the roads. Their plea stated
that if people stayed home, first responders would be safe too. Appealing
to people’s altruistic nature to aid others can motivate them to heed pub-
lic education messages.

10.4.4 Relocations
When repetitive losses continue to pile up, one option is to relocate perma-
nently all affected residents and businesses. Relocations offer both advan-
tages and disadvantages. Clearly, one advantage is that people no longer
lose their homes or livelihoods to disaster. Another edge is that relocation
reduces future costs for governments and insurance providers. Indirectly,
we may all benefit because insurance rates do not increase. The disadvan-
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

tages can be significant though. Would you like to move permanently away
from neighbors and friends? The loss of social networks can be disruptive
personally, especially after a disaster. Often, people’s homes are tied to jobs
such as farming and fishing locations. Places also represent cultural, envi-
ronmental, and historical values. Where we grew up and choose to live often
situates us in places that designate who we are and what we value. Giving up
such places is not so easy.

Relocation may not be financially feasible either. Moving to a new loca-

tion means that a family loses a significant economic investment. In cases
of repetitive losses where people need assistance to relocate, government
agencies may offer what is called a buyout. People who accept buyout assis-
tance agree to take fair market value for their properties and move outside
the hazardous area. The federal government offers up to 75% of the costs of
a buyout with the remainder funded by state and local governments. The
community makes a decision to offer a buyout program and then retains
the properties for use as parklands or other open spaces.
Relocating businesses can be challenging too as funding may need to
come from multiple sources. Public facilities that must be relocated can use
government funding from multiple sources by applying to multiple agen-
cies, but private firms must pay their own costs. The small community of
Soldier’s Grove, Wisconsin relocated. The cost of levees to reduce repetitive
funding was estimated at $3.5 million in the 1970s and $10,000 annual main-
tenance fees were imposed. The costs were prohibitive for the town of 600
residents. The community approached government with a plan to relocate
and began to do so in the late 1970s at a cost of $6 million. A flood in 2007
caused only minor damage in parks and campgrounds, saving businesses
and homes (FEMA 2010c). Increasingly in the U.S., local governments must
complete their mitigation planning to qualify for federal assistance. In loca-
tions where relocation is not feasible, other options can protect farmland,
livestock, and family businesses (see Box 10.4). In short, efforts must be
taken to move people, animals, and jobs out of harm’s way.

10.4.5 Insurance
Do you have personal insurance for your car and home? Non-structural
mitigation measures such as insurance provide a means to rebound from
disasters. Carrying personal insurance, even if you are a renter, allows you to
replace a computer, clothing, and furniture. Renter’s insurance can be sur-
prisingly inexpensive. While you may not want to pay even a small amount
on a limited budget, contrasting your potential losses with the monthly pre-
mium may put this inexpensive mitigation measure into perspective.
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

You should take the time to visit with an insurance provider to determine
your need for coverage including any limitations. Many insurance policies
do not cover flooding or wind damage. To make up for this, the U.S. gov-
ernment offers the National Flood Insurance Program. Private insurance
companies sell and service the policies that cost about $500 annually. The
program insures homes up to $250,000 and covers contents up to $100,000.
A number of conditions must be in place. For example, communities that
offer the insurance must adopt and enforce ordinances that prohibit building
on floodplains. You will also have to pay a deductible before your insurance

BOX 10.4 TO RELOCATE OR NOT TO RELOCATE?

Relocation: Medical Clinic Moved From Danger
North Dakota’s historic 1997 Red River Valley flood nearly spelled doom for
one small-town medical clinic. Inside the building, flood waters rose to six
inches. A thick layer of mud covered the floor and mold had begun to grow.
Despite efforts to clean and disinfect the building, the medical staff thought
the health risk for patients was too high to treat them inside the building.
Instead, the staff treated patients in their cars.
Floods are a regular occurrence in Drayton, a small city with a popula-
tion of 900. It faces a flood threat practically every year. The clinic building,
which also housed a local dentist, was at risk to flood again and again,
even though it sat thirty-five feet above the normal river level. The river
last reached the clinic’s crawl space in the spring of 1999. It was the tenth
recorded flood since 1980 alone.
To make matters worse, the riverbank had become increasingly unsta-
ble due to erosion from repetitive flooding. Because of this, there was not
enough stability behind the clinic to build an emergency dike. Some thought
it was only a matter of time before the weight of the building would cause the
ground to collapse, sending the clinic tumbling toward the river. Residents
and city officials felt something had to be done. The city’s hospital closed
in 1975, and the clinic was the only local medical facility available to resi-
dents. They knew they needed money to pay for a new building that was
better protected from flooding. Through a public–private partnership, they
received everything they asked for.
A financial package that included a grant from the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development Administration, proceeds from the National
Flood Insurance Program, and donations from local organizations led to the
purchase and remodeling of another building on the edge of town. Since July
1999, the clinic has been operating from a larger, newly remodeled facility
about a half mile from the structure’s original location on Main Street. Due
to the recent disaster-resistant measures, the chances of the facility being
damaged again are greatly reduced. It is also likely the clinic can remain
open for patient care, even if flooding threatens other areas of the city.
Source: FEMA.

Not to Relocate, but to Still Protect

When flood impacts a farm community, there are many challenges and com-
plications. Not only must residents get themselves out of harm’s way, but
they also must protect their livestock, secure farm equipment and supplies,
and deal with many other issues. Jason Roetcisoender’s family has owned
their 120-acre farm in Duvall, Washington since the 1920s. Throughout that
time, there have been numerous floods that have impacted their home and
property. In a flood in 1975, while the farm was run by Jason’s father, they
lost thirty-two cows. In Duvall’s flood-of-record in 1990, the family lost 120
animals to high water.

“After the flood in 1990, Washington State and King County approved
emergency permitting for the installation of critter pads,” said
Mr. Roetcisoender. “The local farmers, including my father, went to them
to try to find a solution to the flooding, and that was one of the remedies
they came up with.” A critter pad, or livestock flood sanctuary mound, is an
area where approved fill material is used to raise the ground above the Base
Flood Elevation (BFE). When flooding occurs, farmers move their livestock
onto the pads to keep the animals out of the water’s reach. Critter pads
require special permitting and must be specifically designed to ensure they
have a negligible impact on the floodplain. They also may not be built within
the boundaries of a river’s floodway. Since the Roetcisoenders completed
their critter pad in 1991, they have had to use it on three occasions, includ-
ing the November flood of 2006. In that incident, Mr. Roetcisoender was
able to move over 300 head of cattle onto the pad and keep them safe. They
also filled two of the family’s trucks with feed and drove them up onto the
pad to be safe and easily accessible.
In the nearby Town of Carnation, Michelle Blakely has a thirty-three-acre
farm where she grows organic vegetables and fruits, and raises chick-
ens, cows, pigs, and turkeys. When the Blakelys purchased the farm two
years ago, a critter pad was already in place, built by the previous owner.
According to Mrs. Blakely, the pad was part of the incentive to acquire the
land. Unfortunately, in 2006, when the waters rose during the November
flood, despite being above the BFE, the pad was not high enough. Upon
returning to their home following a mandatory evacuation, the Blakelys
found that all their chickens and turkeys were gone. The Blakelys suffered
significant financial damage to their farm from the 2006 flood, a good por-
tion of it in poultry losses. Not wanting to go through this again, they decided
to raise the critter pad even higher. They purchased permitted fill, rented a
bulldozer, and raised the pad almost three feet.
When the floodwaters came again in December of 2007, the Blakelys felt
they were ready. Working fast, the Blakelys managed to relocate their birds
from coops on different areas of their property to the elevated pad, even as
rising waters surrounded them. If the chickens and turkeys had not been
moved to the critter pad, they would have been lost. This time, the Blakelys
managed to save almost 1,500 birds from floodwaters.
Sources: FEMA. 2010a. Medical Clinic Moved from Danger. http://www.
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

fema.gov/mitigationbp/brief.do?mitssId=1565; FEMA. 2010b. Moo’ving on

Up. http://www.fema.gov/mitigationbp/briefPdfReport.do?mitssId=5446

covers any losses. If appropriate insurance is in place, people who face the
possibility of flooding can stay in homes likely to be close to where they earn
their livelihoods. Moving out of harm’s way is not always economically pos-
sible, so insurance can mitigate potential economic losses (for more infor-
mation, visit www.floodsmart.gov).

10.4.6 Advantages of Non-Structural Mitigation

Advantages of non-structural mitigation include options that are less costly
than structural measures. Educational programs can range from public talks
to more expensive public awareness campaigns. By reaching out to those at
risk, public officials empower individuals to take responsibility for their own
safety. Outreach also links public officials to public behavior that can have a
significant impact. In the case of pandemic planning, for example, educating
the public to engage in healthy behaviors as simple as washing hands can
stem a potential outbreak. Targeting those most likely to become ill such as
seniors or expectant mothers can save lives.
While non-structural mitigation measures usually require some invest-
ment, such as for insurance, the payoffs can be enormous. You will be able
to rebuild and replace furniture, clothing, and computers. Setting aside
land for green space or parks serves the public good and enhances quality of
life for all. Because structural elements are so costly to install and maintain,
non-structural measures represent affordable options for many individuals
and communities.

10.4.7 Disadvantages of Non-Structural Mitigation

If you are among the few who hear public advice about washing your hands
and sneezing into your elbow, then disregard that information, you can
understand the disadvantages of non-structural mitigation. People and
businesses have to take responsibility for the mitigation information they
receive and their failures to do so.
Another problem with non-structural mitigation may be that an indi-
vidual may not be able to afford insurance. For low income families, insur-
ance costs can be prohibitive. It is not unusual to discover the cheapest
insurance fails to cover specific hazards like wind and flooding. Or certain
aspects of reconstruction such as debris removal and installation of a con-
crete foundation slab are not covered. Smaller businesses also have trouble
affording non-structural mitigation measures. Finally, those seeking adop-
tion and support for non-structural mitigation projects have to secure pub-
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

lic attention and commitment. Mitigation is often not on the public mind
until well after a disaster strikes.

10.4.8 Successful Non-Structural Mitigation Projects

As noted earlier in this chapter, former FEMA Director James Lee Witt ini-
tiated several related projects to promote mitigation with an emphasis on
non-structural techniques. One was named Project Impact that partnered

government guidance with local stakeholder involvement. Designed as a

grass-roots mitigation project, the steps included:
•• Find and involve a range of community partners such as those in
government and from community groups as well as business leaders
and local citizens.
•• Assess area hazards and the risks they may pose.
•• Establish action steps that need to be taken in priority order and set
aside or secure resources.
•• Educate the public about the projects and their potential to offset
future losses.
In a study of Project Impact for FEMA, researchers at the University of
Delaware’s Disaster Research Center examined seven pilot communities.
Through in-person interviews, they assessed how the project handled risk
and hazard assessments, mitigation efforts, partnerships, and public educa-
tion activities (Wachtendorf et al. 2002). After three years of activity, they
determined that the pilot communities pursued both structural and non-
structural activities. To accomplish risk assessment, they conducted vulner-
ability analyses, inventoried resources, and assessed capabilities.
Partnerships also generated a wide range of public education efforts such
as disaster fairs. Even costly structural mitigation efforts including retrofits
were included in their initiatives. The communities also experienced suc-
cess in recruiting business partnerships that represented half of the part-
ners among the seven communities. Participation from local governments
steadily increased throughout the three-year study period. The communi-
ties involved also faced uphill struggles to retain their partnerships when
turnover occurred among key personnel and funding initiatives. Overall,
Project Impact may have had its biggest impact by empowering local peo-
ple to assess their risks and work together to reduce losses (Wachtendorf
et al. 2002). As noted earlier, Project Impact disappeared after September 11,
2001 as the emergency management pendulum swung back from mitigation
to response.
A more recent FEMA effort involved a number of institutions in its
Disaster-Resistant Universities (DRU) initiative (FEMA 2003, see Box 10.5).
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

As the example from the University of California Berkeley illustrated earlier,

universities and colleges represent considerable economic investments and
opportunities. They generate more than tuition dollars, as faculty and staff
seek external funding for basic and applied research projects. Their grants
fund research and pay for student assistants, laboratories, research centers,
support staff, and even utilities, computers, library resources, and more. The
money that universities expend for their work supports the broader com-
munity as people pay rent and mortgages, buy gas and groceries, and enjoy
local recreational opportunities with their salaries.

BOX 10.5 BUILDING DISASTER-RESILIENT UNIVERSITIES

Monica Teets Farris

Monica Teets Farris is the acting director of the Center for Hazards
Assessment, Response and Technology (CHART) at the University of New
Orleans. She is a leader among those working on disaster reduction and
resiliency in the university setting.

Dean of Liberal Arts, University of New Orleans. (Source: Photo courtesy of

Monica Teets Farris. With permission.)
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

Anthony Russell, FEMA Region VI Director. (Source: Photo courtesy of

Monica Teets Farris. With permission.)

Like all communities, university and college campuses are vulnerable to

disasters. Over the past decades, university communities have been signifi-
cantly impacted by both natural and man-made disasters. From hurricanes
to acts of violence, students, faculty and staff, campus facilities, and
research assets have been harmed. In August 2005, the campus of Dillard
University in New Orleans, Louisiana was inundated with up to ten feet of
flood waters due to Hurricane Katrina. On April 16, 2007, a Virginia Tech stu-
dent shot twenty-one fellow students on campus resulting in the deadliest
campus shooting in U.S. history.
Also like other communities, universities must do what they can to protect
their citizens and critical assets. In the fall of 2000, FEMA launched a pilot pro-
gram to assist institutions of higher learning in addressing vulnerabilities to nat-
ural disasters and mitigating the potential impacts. Similar to FEMA’s Project
Impact: Building Disaster Resistant Communities, the Disaster-Resistant
University (DRU) program provided funds to enable universities to create miti-
gation programs that would include planning and project development.
In addition to providing funding, FEMA, with the assistance of six univer-
sities including Tulane University, University of Alaska Fairbanks, University
of California Berkeley, University of Miami, University of North Carolina
Wilmington, and University of Washington developed a program guidebook.
Building a Disaster-Resistant University was published in August 2003 and
is available on FEMA’s website (http://www.fema.gov/institution/dru.shtm).
This guidebook provides helpful information on the steps necessary to cre-
ate a mitigation plan. These steps include the organization of resources,
hazard identification and risk assessment, development of the planning
document, and adoption and implementation of the plan.
Although the DRU project is no longer funded by FEMA, the concept
remains. Universities and colleges may still apply for mitigation planning
and project funds through FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants.
The University of New Orleans (UNO), supported by its Center for Hazards
Assessment, Response and Technology (UNO-CHART), began its DRU
program with a FEMA grant that funded the development of a hazard miti-
gation plan for its main campus. The plan, approved by FEMA in 2006,
includes hazard profiles, a risk assessment, and a list of mitigation action
items that include structural and non-structural projects (retrofits for wind
and flood hazards, education and outreach. The goal of this planning effort
is to reduce or eliminate potential impacts of natural and man-made hazards
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

to which UNO is vulnerable. Moreover, this plan makes UNO eligible to apply
for additional FEMA hazard mitigation funds. Since 2005, UNO has applied
for and has been awarded additional FEMA funding to include satellite loca-
tions in its mitigation planning efforts and to begin scoping potential mitiga-
tion projects for its campuses. Most recently, FEMA, through the Louisiana
Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness,
awarded UNO a grant that allowed it to host a DRU workshop on its cam-
pus in February 2011. Over 100 people representing universities across the
country attended.

In addition to funding, the DRU concept also endures through the con-
tinued development of a DRU community that shares information daily on
the DRU listserv. Universities across the country and internationally rely
on the listserv for information about all phases of emergency manage-
ment including preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. The DRU
listserv and archive, hosted and maintained by the University of Oregon
Emergency Management Program, began in January 2005. Since then,
university faculty, staff, and students have been able to share information
on a variety of topics including planning, continuity of operations, mental
health, pandemics, emergency communications equipment, and guidance
on developing and implementing campus emergency exercises. The DRU
Repository for housing documents shared by the DRU community is now
hosted by the University of California Davis.

Disaster impacts on a university can be significant, causing disruption

to student education, salaries of employees, and research projects that are
conducted twenty-four hours, seven days a week in laboratories. Damage
caused by earthquakes, hurricanes, flooding, and other events can result
in enormous losses. Think also about the possible impacts of terrorism at a
major sporting event or an explosion at a campus laboratory.
Mitigation measures to reduce the effects on universities and colleges
start with a familiar series of steps. The first is organization by convening a
planning group to work through the mitigation planning process. Second,
that group should identify hazards and assess risks to structures and human
life on their campus. A third step involves prioritizing areas for action with
the understanding that (like Berkeley) not all desired actions are affordable.
The final step leads to adopting and implementing mitigation measures.
Activities that may be familiar to you likely include text and email emer-
gency messaging services (be sure your information is current for your sys-
tem!). Less visible but equally important, your university probably has plans
for evacuating people should a tornado approach during the football game
or a bomb threat develop. Laboratories probably have installed shelving to
prevent glass vials from shifting in an earthquake and trained staff on emer-
gency procedures. Laboratories also install safety features such as eye pro-
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

tection and showers. Hopefully your campus has designated safe locations
for inclement weather and clearly indicates them by visible signage and web-
site content. Look around as you walk from class to class this week and see
what you can spot.

10.5 M itigation Planning

As noted throughout this chapter, mitigation takes a back seat to the other
disaster phases. This is especially true in countries and locations that lack

effective leadership, political will, and economic resources for mitigation.

Several exceptions do exist. The U.S. Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public
Law 106-390) set out new programs and requirements for mitigation work.
The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) for example makes fund-
ing available in a post-disaster period. However, an HMGP grant requires
that a community has a mitigation plan in place. The program thus rewards
pre-disaster planning and promotes sustainability by empowering commu-
nities to identify their risks and prioritize solutions.
The mitigation plan approval process and allocation of HMGP funds also
encourages local communities, states, and federal partners to cooperate and
coordinate. By having a plan in place prior to disaster, people know what
they can do afterward. They know the risky areas, have pre-identified solu-
tions, and work together to design an effective, prioritized plan. Planning
allows a community to take the time needed to think through the problems
disasters present and be ready. Many solutions can be implemented before
a disaster as well as afterward (FEMA #1, see Resources section).
After a disaster, a great deal of activity occurs to complete response actions
and initiate recovery efforts. Recovery also offers a good time to raise miti-
gation concerns with residents and public officials. People can still see and
are still dealing with the effects of an impact and are open to change.

10.5.1 First Steps in Mitigation Planning

Engaging in mitigation planning acknowledges that the public may not under-
stand the importance of the actions. The public may not have a good memory
if no 100-year flood event occurred in recent decades. Understandably, if a
disaster falls outside collective memory, apathy may be the public response.
Politicians may have other priorities besides mitigation as well, and feel they
need to address economic, education, and other routine but pressing issues.
The first step then is to inspire the public to become involved in and sup-
port mitigation planning. Public laws such as the Disaster Mitigation Act in
the U.S. may inspire planning efforts. A community may work through an
appointed committee with representatives from various sectors. Regardless
of organizational details, mitigation planning must occur at the local level
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

and reflect local hazards and risks.

Planning must involve an array of partners that represents all sectors:
education (grade school through university levels), businesses of all sizes,
utilities, recreational and tourist facilities, government, and residential
sectors. Planners must consider and involve individuals in neighborhoods
who are most vulnerable: women, racial and ethnic minorities, seniors liv-
ing alone or in assisted living facilities, people with disabilities, and others
at risk. Living in a trailer park should not keep you away from the plan-
ning table. Such homes are highly vulnerable to flooding and severe weather

and thus their residents should participate in planning. No one should

be excluded and efforts must be made to include people in meetings that
are accessible and offer appropriate language and literacy levels (National
Council on Disability 2009; Morrow 2010).
Planning should also reflect community culture. Perhaps your commu-
nity has a history of appointing formal committees to accomplish public
tasks. Or maybe you live in an area in which Native American residents
rely on talking circles (Picou 2000). Honoring the local way of meeting and
connecting leverages a community’s existing social networks and knowl-
edge bases and makes people feel more welcome at the planning table. By
respecting what people value locally, we generate more interest in their par-
ticipation in mitigation along with their personal, economic, and political
support (see Box 10.6)
In California, three separate jurisdictions (the Berkeley Unified School
District, the city of Berkeley, and the University of California Berkeley)
worked together to reduce risk. The effort became possible through indi-
viduals who assumed the leadership and responsibility to make it happen
(Chakos, Schulz, and Tobin 2002). As if earthquake threats were not enough,
the area also suffered from a wildfire in the nearby urban area of Oakland,
home to many who work in Berkeley. The three institutions created a task
force and enacted special tax assessments to fund mitigation work. Berkeley
also benefited from a community that believed truly in participatory democ-
racy; people attend and join in actively when public debate emerges over
various issues. With stakeholder involvement, Berkeley voted $390 million
for mitigation projects. Beyond the public work approved, the community
also worked to address risk in small businesses and residences by “develop-
ing appropriate seismic standards, finding affordable solutions, and provid-
ing new incentives for retrofit” although this effort has been challenging.
Why has Berkeley been so successful in tackling mitigation when other
communities languish in that area? Political persistence paid off: “the impe-
tus for change came from a handful of champions who tirelessly kept the
issues in front of political leaders and the public, and who unashamedly
lobbied at the local, state, and national level for information and resources”
(Chakos et al. 2002, p. 64).
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

10.5.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Process

FEMA provides an extensive set of mitigation planning resources (http://
www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/index.shtm; see Resources section).
The planning process involves several basic steps: (1) organize resources,
(2) assess risks, (3) develop a mitigation plan, and (4) implement the plan. It
sounds straightforward, but a plan can take time, even years to complete and
require even more time to secure financial resources for implementation.

BOX 10.6 MITIGATION BEST PRACTICES

Ann Patton

Ann Patton of Tulsa, Oklahoma, specializes in disaster management, urban

affairs, and grassroots partnership building. Mrs. Patton spearheaded the
team that created Tulsa’s award-winning flood hazard mitigation program
that served as a national model for FEMA’s Project Impact. FEMA awarded
Mrs. Patton its top national public services award in 1998 and named Tulsa
a national mentoring community in 2000. In 2004, the Oklahoma Floodplain
Managers Association gave her its lifetime achievement award; Tulsa
Partners gave her its J. D. Metcalfe Building Bridges Award for community
service; and the City of Tulsa named an open-space floodplain park “Ann
Patton Commons” in her honor. (Source: Photo courtesy of Ann Patton.
With permission.)
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

When a tornado wrecked a hundred homes in Cordell, Oklahoma, the Day

Care Depot took a direct hit. The center windows blew in, and boards and
debris blasted through walls and the roof. Inside, sixteen children and their
caretakers were huddled securely in a reinforced concrete safe room built
by a grandfather, Barney Donovan. Their neighborhood was splintered, but
they all weathered the 2001 storm just fine.
Elsewhere, when the 6.8 Nisqually earthquake rocked Seattle that same
year, thousands of homes were spared damage because their owners
completed do-it-yourself earthquake retrofits. They learned how to brace

and strengthen their homes in free Saturday morning seminars taught by

a community volunteer, Roger Faris. On the other coast, when Hurricane
Ike devastated Galveston in 2008, Paul Strizek’s home was hardly touched,
although his neighbor’s house was swept away. Before the storm, Paul
strengthened his house and raised it above the storm surge.
These success stories all testify to the power of hazard mitigation, an
unfriendly but important term that covers actions taken before, during, or
after a disaster to reduce or avert death, damages, disruptions, and other
losses. An ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure. One study
showed that every $1 spent on hazard mitigation produces at least $4 in
benefits (Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council 2005). For that reason, many
seasoned emergency managers work to create a community culture that
values prevention and mitigation. But mitigation can offer challenges for
managers, because— although the long-term value of prevention actions
such as stronger building codes or floodplain buyouts often appear self-
evident after disasters—they can be hard to sell in the short term.
Fortunately, emergency managers can learn from masters like Frank
Reddish, the late Miami-Dade mitigation manager, who lured community
leaders and volunteers into becoming mitigation missionaries. Frank cre-
ated a mitigation planning committee whose work was so exciting that
meeting attendance averaged 100 people. Over a decade, the commit-
tee completed hundreds of millions of dollars in mitigation projects, from
major public works to shutters for seniors’ homes. When Hurricane Wilma
hit Miami in 2005, nothing that had been mitigated was damaged. Frank had
two secret weapons: he never stopped preaching mitigation and his style
was 100% collaborative because, “it’s the only way to get things done.”
Some other proven techniques for encouraging community mitigation
include:
•• Find one or more community champions for hazard mitigation, per-
haps elected officials, TV weather people, or other influential citizens.
•• Your champion may want to lead a local mitigation committee of
both technical experts and interested citizens to offer public educa-
tion, develop mitigation plans, and encourage mitigation actions.
•• Develop a phased hazard mitigation plan based around your com-
munity’s risks, heritage, and priorities.
•• Arm the group with mitigation tips and inspirational success stories
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

available from FEMA.gov, FLASH.org, IBHS.org, and other sites.

•• Build collaborative partnerships with diverse groups, across the
board of public, private, and nonprofit sectors. One key partner:
the news media that hold the key to the most effective way to get
out your message and whip up community buzz.
Without hazard mitigation, we are doomed to keep repeating the same disas-
ters over and over again. Reducing disaster losses in the long haul depends
first on understanding the risks and strengths peculiar to your own place and

second mobilizing local talent in collaborative endeavors that can over time
create communities that are safer, stronger, and better places to live.
Sources: Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council, 2005. Natural Hazard
M i t i g a t i o n   S a v e s   h t t p: // w w w.f l o o d s .o r g / P D F/ M M C _Vo l u m e1_
FindingsConclusionsRecommendations.pdf); Tulsans Know Tornadoes:
Safe Rooms Take Tulsa by Storm (http://www.eeri.org/mitigation/files/
resources-for-success/00089.pdf); Meo, Mark, Becky, Ziebro, and Ann
Patton. 2004. Tulsa turnaround: from disaster to sustainability. Natural
Hazards Review, 5: 1–9.

Step 1 involves a mitigation leader in assessing community support. First,

identify the planning area such as the jurisdictional boundaries of your city
or perhaps a specific neighborhood. Next, see whether the community is
ready to begin the process and remove roadblocks to their participation and
support. That means you will spend considerable time explaining the process
and value of mitigation planning to the public and to community officials.
A public education effort may take the form of a series of media stories
that cover past local disasters, describe their impacts, and map out risk areas.
Efforts to convince public officials may focus on the long-term cost effective-
ness of mitigation and stress that investment now pays dividends later .
As the efforts of James Lee Witt and FEMA demonstrated in the 1990s,
mitigation usually requires a “powerful champion” to spearhead mitigation
efforts (FEMA #1; Godschalk et al. 1998). Relentless leadership is essential
to inspire effective partnerships, survive over the long haul, and encourage
broad-based support (Godschalk et al. 1998). Good planners also work with
other local agencies and tie mitigation into stormwater management, rec-
reational planning, residential development, transportation design, capital
improvement initiatives, and comprehensive planning.
Step 2 actively involves the mitigation planning team in assessing local
hazards. Where can you find hazards information? Here is where the skills
you learned in Chapter 3 on research methods pay off. Local memories pro-
vide a good start but may not be completely reliable. You can interview peo-
ple who survived or remember disaster events and their impacts. People will
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

remember an ice storm that cut off their power for three weeks and will be
more likely to support underground utilities as a consequence. Newspapers
and historical records also provide information about past events. Libraries,
historical centers, museums, and archives all contain microfiche and ver-
tical files of information about past disasters. Internet websites list severe
weather and other disasters well back into previous centuries. What kind
of information should you search for? Consider the locations where events
occurred along with magnitude and frequency. The physical damages

should be charted, and you should note where additional development has
been placed vis-á-vis risky areas.
The human impact should be thoughtfully researched and presented too.
Deaths and injuries are certainly important factors, as are the psychological
and spiritual impacts. Losses of pets, livestock, and environmental resources
matter as well. Disruptions to education, businesses, and health care should
be noted. By amassing the information that affects a community in these
relevant areas, you can build a strong case for mitigation projects. You now
need to identify the locations exposed to risk. One way to do so is to conduct
loss estimation. First, estimate losses to each location such as a school, hospi-
tal, or nursing home. Approximate how much damage a local disaster such
as an EF3 tornado would inflict on a physical structure. Next, calculate the
content losses inside each structure and the costs to replace them. A third
element considers the loss of the structure and subsequent need to relocate
a home or business temporarily or permanently. The combination of struc-
ture loss, content loss, and function loss compile into a total loss from a haz-
ard event. Imagine an earthquake that severely damages or disrupts homes,
schools, utilities, and businesses for weeks to months. The financial impacts
alone are staggering (see Box 10.7 for an example of loss estimation).
After the data are accumulated and analyzed, present the information
to the public to raise concern and support. And be creative. Attend wor-
ship services, speak to service organizations, distribute flyers, involve scout
troops in delivering information door to door, distribute information at
parent–teacher meetings, and invite neighborhood associations to hear your
concerns (FEMA #2). Get people concerned and excited and keep in mind
the considerable payoffs that may result.
Step 3 leads the community through mitigation planning (Burby 2001;
Fordham 1998). Here you build upon the information you collected and the
risks calculated and collectively determine appropriate actions. What are
your community’s goals and objectives? You may determine that the loca-
tion of trailer parks along a river represents a considerable risk to those liv-
ing in the area. Your goal is then to reduce impacts on their homes and lives.
Options might include constructing a levee or relocating the trailer park to
an area outside the floodplain. You may decide that the trailer park, if the
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

owner is amenable, is a prime location for affordable elevated housing. Or,

perhaps the schools in your communities are concerns due to severe weather.
A key goal of your committee may be protecting future citizens by installing
congregate safe rooms at each school, retrofitting the roofs with additional
clamps, and adding blast-resistant doors and windows. Your committee then
faces the biggest challenges: prioritizing the objectives into action steps and
securing funding. These tasks may be the most daunting as you decide which
locations and populations require the most immediate action (FEMA #3).

BOX 10.7 ESTIMATING YOUR POTENTIAL LOSSES

In its series of guidebook on mitigation, FEMA has offered a general formula
to estimate losses. To do so, you must identify three key components: struc-
ture loss, content loss, and usage loss. Structure loss refers to building dam-
age. If an F4 tornado takes out a house valued at $150,000 the total loss is
$150,000. If only 50% of the house is damaged, the structural loss is $75,000.
Content loss refers to what you lose inside the home. FEMA estimates
that if four feet of water entered a single-story home without a basement,
about 43.5% of the contents would be lost. Stop for a minute and imagine
what items in your home life are below four feet. Look around: carpets, fur-
niture, televisions, electrical outlets, plumbing, bookcases, food, appliances,
clothes, and shoes. Don’t forget your pets either. Can you imagine the cost of
replacing all of these items, especially if you do not have adequate insurance?
The type of housing that you live in also matters. In contrast to a single-story
home, a mobile home would suffer 90% content losses with four feet of water.
Clearly, disproportionate outcomes affect people at different income levels.
Next, consider the usage losses. If you need to move, you may be lucky
to rent a comparable unit and move quickly—if you are a renter. If you or
your family own a home, you will probably need to rebuild in the same loca-
tion for financial and occupational reasons. This means you will be dis-
placed during the rebuilding. How much will it cost to house your family
and for how long? You should assume that you will be out of your home for
at least a month after most disasters. Displacement for those affected by
the U.S. Gulf Coast storms and the Indian Ocean tsunami spanned years,
not weeks or months. If you conduct a home-based business, you will also
experience downtime as you struggle to replace the tools of your livelihood
such as computers, carpentry or car repair tools, sewing machines, cook-
ing utensils, or child care facilities that formerly generated income (for more
on business recovery, see Chapter 11).
Finally, total your losses and consider how much you have available in sav-
ings and personal insurance. Does your insurance cover the local hazard?
Those facing losses after Hurricane Katrina faced protracted legal battles
when insurers refused to pay their claims. How long can you financially sur-
vive without a return on the financial investment you made by paying insur-
ance premiums? Before you decide that insurance is not something to pursue,
think about the full range of hazards that insurance does cover including fire
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

and theft. Can you really survive without such coverage? Insurance usually
reduces the risk of financial losses and sets many back on the road to recov-
ery. As one of the main non-structural mitigation measures available to you, it
would be wise to research what it covers, how much and under what circum-
stances vis-á-vis what you see as acceptable financial losses.
(Source: FEMA. 2001. Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and
Estimating Losses. Report 386-4. Washington. FEMA mitigation resources
can be viewed and downloaded at http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/
bestpractices/index.shtm)

Physical and human vulnerabilities must be weighed when choosing action

steps. This is the time when powerful voices may lobby for their own inter-
ests, and strong leadership will be required to stay on task to reduce risk for as
many people as possible, particularly those least able to represent themselves.
In Step 4, your efforts result in an implementation strategy and timeline
to reach the objectives. Continual efforts are required to secure funding
because the project may fall from public view and interest after planning is
complete. By continuing to present your mitigation efforts to the public as
you did in earlier steps, you can keep the issue alive and remind people of
progress. Each disaster in your community or in the area can be used as a
visible reminder of the value of mitigation. While your mitigation work may
seem unending and the payoff far in the future, the payoff will come some-
day. The lives you save may be those of your grandchildren (see Box 10.8).

BOX 10.8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND MITIGATION

Look around your home. What historic elements are present? Perhaps
you have meaningful photographs or mementos. Maybe you have a family
Bible dating back several generations. Perhaps you have a photograph of
your grandparents on their 50th wedding anniversary. Tucked away inside
a closet maybe you have your wedding dress or a baby’s shoes. These
treasures represent a connection to your past and tangible losses should a
disaster strike. Consider, for example, that protestors seeking the downfall
of the Egyptian government in 2011 formed a human chain around muse-
ums housing priceless antiquities. Across the embattled nation, citizens
chose historic preservation in the midst of internal turmoil.
Maybe you live in a building with historic elements. Both historic district
homes with high values and homes that may have fallen into disrepair but
contain architectural elements important to a specific period are unique to a
community. Look around your home, neighborhood, and community. Where
are the places of historic meaning? To help you get started, visit http://www.
nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/ to view a list of U.S. places on the
Historical Register. Why have people worked to keep these locations intact?
What do these places mean locally? Do they generate tourism revenue? Do
they offer visitors a look at who lived here and why they chose this place?
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

Mitigation of historic treasures at a personal or collective level is impor-

tant. For example, in Harper’s Ferry, West Virginia, John Brown and others
initiated a first resistance to the institution of slavery in the U.S. They died
at the executioner’s hands for their bold attempt but the place became
famous nonetheless. Their legacy lives on through maintaining the site
for educational and historic purposes. The famous anti-slavery orator
Frederick Douglass and sociologist W.E.B. DuBois made Harper’s Ferry
a central place for making speeches and generating resistance, but the
town experiences repetitive flooding. To save the site, several mitigation

measures have been put into place (Noble 2001). Flood hatches and water-
resistant doors have been installed. Site staff members have trained on
which prioritized items to save first and the locations of pre-placed tools.
As with recommendations earlier in this chapter, electronics and outlets
were placed above the water line. John Brown’s contribution to freedom
of African Americans lives on through the dedication of those who partici-
pated in mitigation.

10.6 Working or Volunteering
in Mitigation
Jobs in disaster mitigation open and close constantly and you should moni-
tor websites that list employment opportunities. In 2011, FEMA announced
that applicants could apply for a mitigation specialist position in Oakland,
California. Salary ranged from $81,460 to $105,897. FEMA said, “When
disaster strikes, America looks to FEMA. Now FEMA looks to you. Join
our team and use your talent to support Americans in their times of great-
est need. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepares
the nation for all hazards and manages federal response and recovery
efforts following any national incident. We foster innovation, reward per-
formance and creativity, and provide challenges on a routine basis with a
well-skilled, knowledgeable, high performance workforce. You will serve in
the Mitigation Division, Region 9, Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in Oakland, CA. In this
position, you will serve as a program manager for implementation of the
FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant programs and as liaison to state
counterparts.” The program manager was required to:
Provide technical assistance to states and sub-grantees.
Monitor the status and performance of HMA grants awarded to states.
Plan, coordinate, monitor, conduct, and complete environmental reviews.
Review, analyze, and provide input on guidance, policies, and proce-
dures related to HMA programs.
Develop and present materials.
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

Serve in the Joint Field Office as the mitigation branch director.

Qualified applicants would need specialized experience in hazard mitiga-
tion programs, policies, and practices. That body of knowledge also requires
understanding of environmental and historic preservation programs and
the ability to work with a range of partners at all governmental levels includ-
ing tribes. Ability to communicate effectively with an array of stakeholders
would be essential, particularly in contexts that may become “contentious.”
Recent international listings in the area of mitigation include:

•• Professional Assistant, Centre for Disaster Mitigation and

Management, Anna University, Chennai, India, for “scientific
research projects related to assessment of seismic risk of buildings in
urban areas of Tamil Nadu State.”
•• Consultant, Disaster Mitigation and Management System, Mongolia,
to “support implementation of the long-term strategy of Mongolia
for disaster risk management to minimize vulnerability.”
Multiple opportunities exist to volunteer in mitigation work because emer-
gency managers need public involvement. Contact your emergency man-
agement agency to determine whether it is involved in such an effort and
ask to become involved. If a plan has been passed, ask whether you can help
implement it. If you are the emergency manager or mitigation leader, task
area organizations with helping to retrofit the homes of seniors, conduct
public education efforts, or raise funds to support objectives that reduce risk
even further.
You may also want to launch a mitigation project through your frater-
nity, sorority, scout troop, sports team, or academic club. Certainly every
community includes elderly residents and people with disabilities who face
challenges implementing mitigation measures for their individual homes.
Imagine, for example, organizing an effort to establish a wildfire perimeter
around someone’s home. Or, after reading this text, you may want to work
with a homeowners’ association to develop a public education project. Your
actions may be as simple as conducting a personal hygiene (hand washing)
demonstration at a local school or launching a tree-planting initiative to
absorb stormwater runoff. You can make a difference.

10.7 S ummary
Mitigation projects are undertaken to reduce the risks associated with haz-
ards. Two main types of mitigation projects address the potential for harm
to people, animals, and the built environment. Structural mitigation proj-
ects center on tangible projects such as dams, levees, safe rooms, and hur-
ricane shelters to reduce damages disasters can generate. Non-structural
mitigation projects are less tangible and include efforts to enforce build-
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

ing codes, purchases of insurance, public education, and mitigation plan-

ning. The planning measure involves stakeholders across the community in
understanding hazards, estimating losses, and designing possible solutions.
Through discussion of the risks they face collectively, those engaged in
mitigation planning come to understand where they need to leverage their
resources. Both structural and non-structural mitigation projects result
from the collective vision, although finding the economic and political
will to enact sometimes expensive projects can be a challenge. One thing is

certain: mitigation projects require a champion to launch and sustain efforts

to reduce risks to the public. Because people tend to be more motivated to
conduct mitigation work after a disaster, the champions of mitigation face
a sustained battle to safeguard future generations. From a cost–benefit per-
spective, the results are certainly worthwhile.

Discussion Questions
1. What are the differences between structural and non-structural miti-
gation? Do any of the examples described in this chapter exist in your
community, neighborhood, or home? Which ones can you find?
2. Who in your community would be a good “champion” for mitigation?
What kind of leadership qualities should that person have?
3. Look at the library and internet sites for your community to identify
disasters that struck in the past fifty years. What were they and where
did they impact? How closely would you have been affected?
4. Look around your home. Inventory the contents and calculate the cost
to replace all of them. Next, budget the amount you need to find an alter-
native place to live for six months while your home is rebuilt. Finally, if
you are a homeowner, estimate the cost of rebuilding your home. Add
the three factors together and compare the costs against your personal
assets and insurance coverage. Do you have enough to recover?
5. Most communities need to plan for stormwater runoff. As you walk,
bike, or drive around your community, what steps have been taken to
handle runoff? How does water flow onto and away from properties?
Is there a tree planting project to absorb stormwater naturally? Do the
city code and/or development plan set aside floodplains and conserve
wetlands? Does the development plan have an initiative to increase
green space through increasing population density or other tradeoffs?
Are there notices above stormwater drains that tell people not to allow
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

chemicals and other runoff to enter area waters and ultimately affect
drinking water? Does area development include the orange fences nec-
essary to prevent silt and sediment from running off into and clogging
stormwater drains? Is there a city effort to prevent flooding by keeping
branches, leaves, and other debris out of streams, drains, and other
areas where rain flows? Does the city offer incentives to developers to
keep trees rather than bulldozing properties under construction?

References
American Society of Civil Engineers. 2009. Report Card for America’s Infrastructure.
Washington, D.C.: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Ayscue, Jon. 1996. “Hurricane Damage to Residential Structures: Risk and Mitigation.”
Working Paper #94 at http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/publications/wp/wp94/
wp94.html, last accessed January 31, 2011.
Burby, Raymond J. 1998. “Natural Hazards and Land Use: An Introduction.” Pp. 1–28 in
Cooperating with Nature, (Raymond J. Burby, ed.). Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.
Chakos, Arrietta, Paula Schulz and L. Thomas Tobin. 2002. “Making it Work in Berkeley:
Investing in Community Sustainability.” Natural Hazards Review 3/2: 55–67.
Comerio, Mary. C. 2000. The Economic Benefits of a Disaster-Resistant University. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Berkeley.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2001. “Business Increases Its Involvement
in Earthquake Mitigation.” Available at http://www.fema.gov/mitigationbp/
bestPracticeDetailPDF.do?mitssId=2866, last accessed January 31, 2011.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2003. Building a Disaster-Resistant University.
Washington, D.C.: FEMA Publication 443.
Fordham, Maureen. 1998. “Participatory Planning for Flood Mitigation: models and
approaches.” Australian Journal of Emergency Management 13/4: 27–34.
Godschalk, David, Timothy Beatley, Philip Berke, and Davis Brower. 1998. Natural Hazard
Mitigation: Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Godschalk, David, Edward J. Kaiser, and Philip R. Berke. 1998. “Integrating Hazard
Mitigation and Local Land Use Planning.” Pp. 85–118 in Cooperating with Nature,
(Raymond J. Burby, ed.). Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.
Meo, Mark, Becky, Ziebro and Ann Patton. 2004. “Tulsa Turnaround: from Disaster to
Sustainability.” Natural Hazards Review 5/1: 1–9.
Morrow, Betty. 2010. “Language and Literacy.” Pp. 243–256 in Social Vulnerability to
Disasters, (Brenda D. Phillips, Deborah Thomas, Alice Fothergill, and Lynn Pike,
eds.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Meszaros, Jacqueline and Mark Fiegener. 2004. “Predicting Earthquake Preparation.”
Available at http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/13_571.pdf, last accessed
January 31, 2011.
National Council on Disability. 2009. Effective Emergency Management: Making
Improvements for Communities and People with Disabilities. Washington, D.C.:
National Council on Disability.
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

Noble, B. J. 2001. “Lord willing n’ the creek don’t rise”: Flood Sustainability at Harpers Ferry
National Historical Park. Cultural Resource Management 24/ 8: 16–18.
Picou, J. S. 2000. “Talking Circles as Sociological Practice: Cultural Transformation of
Chronic Disaster Impacts.” Sociological Practice 2/2: 77–97.
Wachtendorf, Tricia, Rory Connell, and Kathleen Tierney, Kristy Kompanik. 2002. Final
Project Report #49 Disaster Resistant Communities Initiative: Assessment of the Pilot
Phase-Year-3. Newark, DE: University of Delaware, Disaster Research Center.

Resources
FEMA offers an extensive series of mitigation guidance publications avail-
able at www.fema.gov:
FEMA #386-1 Getting Started
FEMA #386-2 Understanding Your Risks
FEMA #386-3 Developing the Mitigation Plan
FEMA #386-4 Bringing the Plan to Life
FEMA #386-5 Using Cost Benefit Review in Mitigation Planning
FEMA #386-6 Integrating Historic and Cultural Resource Considerations
into Natural Mitigation Planning
FEMA #386-7 Integrating Man-Made Hazards into Mitigation Planning
FEMA #386-8 Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning
FEMA #368-9 Using the Hazard Mitigation Plan to Prepare Successful
Mitigation Projects
Copyright © 2011. CRC Press LLC. All rights reserved.

Carly Odonnell Crisis Management Plan - Kings Island
100% (1)
Carly Odonnell Crisis Management Plan - Kings Island
15 pages
Business Continuity Plan
No ratings yet
Business Continuity Plan
1 page
Lecture 10 Disaster Mitigation PDF
No ratings yet
Lecture 10 Disaster Mitigation PDF
29 pages
Disaster Management Cycle
No ratings yet
Disaster Management Cycle
51 pages
Disaster Prevention and Mitigation
No ratings yet
Disaster Prevention and Mitigation
7 pages
About Disaster Mitigation
No ratings yet
About Disaster Mitigation
2 pages
Introduction to Disaster Management Disaster Management Refers to the Systematic Process of Preparing
No ratings yet
Introduction to Disaster Management Disaster Management Refers to the Systematic Process of Preparing
21 pages
unit 2
No ratings yet
unit 2
32 pages
Usaid/Oas Caribbean Disaster Mitigation Project: Planning To Mitigate The Impacts of Natural Hazards in The Caribbean
No ratings yet
Usaid/Oas Caribbean Disaster Mitigation Project: Planning To Mitigate The Impacts of Natural Hazards in The Caribbean
40 pages
Unit-8 Disaster Mitigation PDF
No ratings yet
Unit-8 Disaster Mitigation PDF
19 pages
Chapter 4 DRRR
No ratings yet
Chapter 4 DRRR
27 pages
Lecture 6 Fundamentals of Emergency Management
No ratings yet
Lecture 6 Fundamentals of Emergency Management
13 pages
Disaster Mitigation 210280718003 DM
No ratings yet
Disaster Mitigation 210280718003 DM
16 pages
lecture 5
No ratings yet
lecture 5
15 pages
Disaster Management Notes and Questions
100% (1)
Disaster Management Notes and Questions
15 pages
UNIT 2 GEOGRAPHY
No ratings yet
UNIT 2 GEOGRAPHY
11 pages
Disaster Management
50% (2)
Disaster Management
33 pages
2016 DisasterBasics F
No ratings yet
2016 DisasterBasics F
22 pages
11 Unit Eight One
No ratings yet
11 Unit Eight One
48 pages
Accident Escalation
100% (1)
Accident Escalation
44 pages
Risk-assessment-principles-Warning-and-forecasting-system-in-Bangladesh-Emergency-Response-Management-ERM
No ratings yet
Risk-assessment-principles-Warning-and-forecasting-system-in-Bangladesh-Emergency-Response-Management-ERM
16 pages
Mitigation Works: Senior FEMA Officials
No ratings yet
Mitigation Works: Senior FEMA Officials
4 pages
Unit 4 DPPM PDF
No ratings yet
Unit 4 DPPM PDF
47 pages
Nirmala Definition of Disaster
100% (1)
Nirmala Definition of Disaster
12 pages
DPPM Unit 4 Study Material
No ratings yet
DPPM Unit 4 Study Material
48 pages
CONSIDER MITIGATION OPTIONS Fema433 - Step5
No ratings yet
CONSIDER MITIGATION OPTIONS Fema433 - Step5
26 pages
HDM Lec 10
No ratings yet
HDM Lec 10
65 pages
The Disaster Management Cycle [Assignment] (1)
No ratings yet
The Disaster Management Cycle [Assignment] (1)
8 pages
Mitigation
No ratings yet
Mitigation
23 pages
INTRODUCTION
No ratings yet
INTRODUCTION
23 pages
Mitigation in Disaster Management
No ratings yet
Mitigation in Disaster Management
10 pages
Unit IV Dppm
No ratings yet
Unit IV Dppm
45 pages
Disaster Management
No ratings yet
Disaster Management
6 pages
Disaster Management and Preparedness
No ratings yet
Disaster Management and Preparedness
11 pages
Hazard Mitigation and Preparedness An Introductory Text for Emergency Management and Planning Professionals 2nd Schwab Solution Manual download
100% (1)
Hazard Mitigation and Preparedness An Introductory Text for Emergency Management and Planning Professionals 2nd Schwab Solution Manual download
36 pages
Unit 15 Disaster Mitigation Strategies: 15.0 Learning Outcome
No ratings yet
Unit 15 Disaster Mitigation Strategies: 15.0 Learning Outcome
9 pages
Mitigation
No ratings yet
Mitigation
3 pages
Hazard Mitigation and Preparedness An Introductory Text for Emergency Management and Planning Professionals 2nd Schwab Solution Manual - Quickly Download For The Best Reading Experience
100% (4)
Hazard Mitigation and Preparedness An Introductory Text for Emergency Management and Planning Professionals 2nd Schwab Solution Manual - Quickly Download For The Best Reading Experience
39 pages
Hazard Mitigation and Preparedness An Introductory Text for Emergency Management and Planning Professionals 2nd Schwab Solution Manual pdf download
100% (2)
Hazard Mitigation and Preparedness An Introductory Text for Emergency Management and Planning Professionals 2nd Schwab Solution Manual pdf download
35 pages
UNIT 4 Disaster Risk Reduction Disaster Management
No ratings yet
UNIT 4 Disaster Risk Reduction Disaster Management
90 pages
Emergency Response Management
No ratings yet
Emergency Response Management
6 pages
Unit 2
No ratings yet
Unit 2
25 pages
Lec-Disaster Management 24-03-14 Stucopy (1)
No ratings yet
Lec-Disaster Management 24-03-14 Stucopy (1)
39 pages
Unit 2 DM
No ratings yet
Unit 2 DM
48 pages
DPPM Notes
No ratings yet
DPPM Notes
4 pages
Disaster Management in Public Health
No ratings yet
Disaster Management in Public Health
23 pages
Disaster Management
No ratings yet
Disaster Management
17 pages
DPPM mid 2
No ratings yet
DPPM mid 2
12 pages
Disaster Management Cycle by Abhishek C N
No ratings yet
Disaster Management Cycle by Abhishek C N
33 pages
DPPM Unit 4 Notes
No ratings yet
DPPM Unit 4 Notes
34 pages
Disaster Management
100% (1)
Disaster Management
13 pages
Solving Big Problems Made Simple: A Practical Guide
From Everand
Solving Big Problems Made Simple: A Practical Guide
Ranjot Singh Chahal
5/5 (1)
Disaster-Resistant Design
From Everand
Disaster-Resistant Design
Benjamin Ramirez
No ratings yet
Taming the Risk Hurricane: Preparing for Major Business Disruption
From Everand
Taming the Risk Hurricane: Preparing for Major Business Disruption
David Hillson
No ratings yet
Surviving Catastrophe In an Urban Enviroment
From Everand
Surviving Catastrophe In an Urban Enviroment
david holman
No ratings yet
Challenges of Sustainable Living: Navigating the Green Frontier
From Everand
Challenges of Sustainable Living: Navigating the Green Frontier
Marjo Alkula
No ratings yet
Prepping For Crises And Disasters
From Everand
Prepping For Crises And Disasters
An Urban Prepper
No ratings yet
Crisis Management: Strategies for Mitigating and Recovering from Disasters
From Everand
Crisis Management: Strategies for Mitigating and Recovering from Disasters
Susie Johnson
No ratings yet
Biodiversity Offset Law
From Everand
Biodiversity Offset Law
Michael Davis
No ratings yet
Crisis Management - How to Lead Through Uncertainty and Change
From Everand
Crisis Management - How to Lead Through Uncertainty and Change
Jessica Reid
No ratings yet
Bugging Out
From Everand
Bugging Out
Timothy Spears
No ratings yet
Crisis Team Acts
From Everand
Crisis Team Acts
Ember Moonshadow
No ratings yet
Earthquake - Induced Landslides and Tsunamis
No ratings yet
Earthquake - Induced Landslides and Tsunamis
16 pages
CAINTA_CLUP_FINAL_for SP
No ratings yet
CAINTA_CLUP_FINAL_for SP
235 pages
Sulawesi Earthquake
No ratings yet
Sulawesi Earthquake
8 pages
Summary of Ted Failon
100% (1)
Summary of Ted Failon
3 pages
WV Ethiopia DFAP - Application Narrative June 11 REDACTED
No ratings yet
WV Ethiopia DFAP - Application Narrative June 11 REDACTED
49 pages
22prl07 Latam Airlines Flight 2213 - 221120 - 142103
No ratings yet
22prl07 Latam Airlines Flight 2213 - 221120 - 142103
2 pages
Medyu Hapit Na 111
No ratings yet
Medyu Hapit Na 111
41 pages
Policy No ICMC 18-31
No ratings yet
Policy No ICMC 18-31
14 pages
Lecture 2 - Auditing IT Governance Controls
No ratings yet
Lecture 2 - Auditing IT Governance Controls
63 pages
Answer Sheet Week 3
No ratings yet
Answer Sheet Week 3
2 pages
Effects of An Earthquake: Short-Term (Immediate) Impacts
No ratings yet
Effects of An Earthquake: Short-Term (Immediate) Impacts
4 pages
DRRR_q2_mod11_conceptsprinciplesandelementsofdrr_v5.docx
No ratings yet
DRRR_q2_mod11_conceptsprinciplesandelementsofdrr_v5.docx
26 pages
DBOW_DRR.edited (1)
No ratings yet
DBOW_DRR.edited (1)
8 pages
B) Write Briefly On Financial Planning For Disaster Management
No ratings yet
B) Write Briefly On Financial Planning For Disaster Management
4 pages
Barangay Health Emergency Response Team
No ratings yet
Barangay Health Emergency Response Team
2 pages
Listo Si Kap!
100% (3)
Listo Si Kap!
32 pages
Q2 - Quiz1 - Disaster Readiness and Risk Reduction
100% (1)
Q2 - Quiz1 - Disaster Readiness and Risk Reduction
2 pages
DRRR Mod4 Disasters From Different Perspectives
No ratings yet
DRRR Mod4 Disasters From Different Perspectives
42 pages
Disaster Awareness, Preparedness and Management
No ratings yet
Disaster Awareness, Preparedness and Management
18 pages
Bringing Help, Bringing Hope: The American Red Cross Response To Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma
No ratings yet
Bringing Help, Bringing Hope: The American Red Cross Response To Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma
28 pages
The International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) - 2001 Edition: Corrigendum To The User's Manual
No ratings yet
The International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) - 2001 Edition: Corrigendum To The User's Manual
4 pages
Name: Fauzi Rahmad Zeda NIM: 201000488203015 Subject: Advance Reading
No ratings yet
Name: Fauzi Rahmad Zeda NIM: 201000488203015 Subject: Advance Reading
4 pages
Disaster Management in India
No ratings yet
Disaster Management in India
8 pages
Natural Disasters - PPT - Google Slides
No ratings yet
Natural Disasters - PPT - Google Slides
14 pages
Triptico Informativo Del Día Mundial Del Agua Divertido Azul y Verde
No ratings yet
Triptico Informativo Del Día Mundial Del Agua Divertido Azul y Verde
2 pages
Loma Prieta Quake 89
No ratings yet
Loma Prieta Quake 89
9 pages
A Proposed Framework of Key Activities and Processes in The HADR Prep
No ratings yet
A Proposed Framework of Key Activities and Processes in The HADR Prep
31 pages
Understanding The Hazard: Flood
No ratings yet
Understanding The Hazard: Flood
4 pages

Introduction To Emergency Management - (Chapter 10 Mitigation)

Uploaded by

Introduction To Emergency Management - (Chapter 10 Mitigation)

Uploaded by

Chapter 10

10.1 C hapter Objectives

homes and workplaces.

10.3 S tructural Mitigation

BOX 10.1 GILBERT F. WHITE,

Gilbert White. (Source: University Communications, University of Colorado

Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, the nation’s

planning, upstream watershed treatment, flood-proofing buildings, insur-

Boulder in May 2006.

leadership and friendship were always accompanied by wisdom and enlight-

building an above-ground safe room, it is best to follow careful guidelines

800 people died in Chile while approximately 300,000 perished in Haiti.

10.3.5 Advantages of Structural Mitigation

10.3.6 Disadvantages of Structural Mitigation

10.3.7 Successful Structural Mitigation Efforts

BOX 10.2 HOUSEHOLD CHECKLIST FOR MITIGATION ACTION

•• Elevate your home if feasible.

replace? Purchase insurance or move irreplaceable items to a

Corporation. Prior to the earthquake, most businesses engaged in general

destructive paths across Oklahoma in 1999 and killed forty-four people,

10.4 N on-Structural Mitigation

10.4.1 Land Use Planning

hazards, where the inherently mitigating qualities of natural environmental

a mitigation planning team determines it should remain as open space to

10.4.2 Building Codes and Enforcement

After a disaster, people take greater interest in new codes as planners,

sneezing or coughing into your elbow is the recommended protocol rather

BOX 10.3 HOW DO YOU WASH YOUR HANDS?

What is the right way to wash your hands?

How should you use hand sanitizer?

For more information on hand washing, visit CDC’s Handwashing: Clean

them to take the recommended actions can be challenging. Because of the

Relocation may not be financially feasible either. Moving to a new loca-

BOX 10.4 TO RELOCATE OR NOT TO RELOCATE?

Not to Relocate, but to Still Protect

fema.gov/mitigationbp/brief.do?mitssId=1565; FEMA. 2010b. Moo’ving on

10.4.6 Advantages of Non-Structural Mitigation

10.4.7 Disadvantages of Non-Structural Mitigation

10.4.8 Successful Non-Structural Mitigation Projects

government guidance with local stakeholder involvement. Designed as a

As the example from the University of California Berkeley illustrated earlier,

BOX 10.5 BUILDING DISASTER-RESILIENT UNIVERSITIES

Dean of Liberal Arts, University of New Orleans. (Source: Photo courtesy of

Anthony Russell, FEMA Region VI Director. (Source: Photo courtesy of

Like all communities, university and college campuses are vulnerable to

Disaster impacts on a university can be significant, causing disruption

10.5 M itigation Planning

effective leadership, political will, and economic resources for mitigation.

10.5.1 First Steps in Mitigation Planning

and reflect local hazards and risks.

and thus their residents should participate in planning. No one should

10.5.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Process

BOX 10.6 MITIGATION BEST PRACTICES

Ann Patton of Tulsa, Oklahoma, specializes in disaster management, urban

When a tornado wrecked a hundred homes in Cordell, Oklahoma, the Day

and strengthen their homes in free Saturday morning seminars taught by

available from FEMA.gov, FLASH.org, IBHS.org, and other sites.

Step 1 involves a mitigation leader in assessing community support. First,

owner is amenable, is a prime location for affordable elevated housing. Or,

BOX 10.7 ESTIMATING YOUR POTENTIAL LOSSES

Physical and human vulnerabilities must be weighed when choosing action

BOX 10.8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND MITIGATION

Mitigation of historic treasures at a personal or collective level is impor-

Serve in the Joint Field Office as the mitigation branch director.

•• Professional Assistant, Centre for Disaster Mitigation and

ing codes, purchases of insurance, public education, and mitigation plan-

certain: mitigation projects require a champion to launch and sustain efforts

You might also like

10.1 C hapter Objectives

10.3 S tructural Mitigation

10.3.5 Advantages of Structural Mitigation

10.3.6 Disadvantages of Structural Mitigation

10.3.7 Successful Structural Mitigation Efforts

10.4 N on-Structural Mitigation

10.4.1 Land Use Planning

10.4.2 Building Codes and Enforcement

10.4.6 Advantages of Non-Structural Mitigation

10.4.7 Disadvantages of Non-Structural Mitigation

10.4.8 Successful Non-Structural Mitigation Projects

10.5 M itigation Planning

10.5.1 First Steps in Mitigation Planning

10.5.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Process