|
|
Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management Crisis and Emergency Management Newsletter Website |
|
|
|
October
2004
Volume 7
- Number 1 |
|
|
Related Sites:
|
STUDY OF FUTURE
BENFITS OF HAZARD MITIGATION
ACTIVITIES
Joseph P. Klein, III In 2000 Congress passed and the President signed the “Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000” (DMA2k) to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. One of the key purposes of DMA2k was to authorize a program of predisaster mitigation as a means to project the public safety and welfare and to reduce the cost of emergency and diaster relief to the federal, State and local governments. As a result of federal expenditures in excess of $31 billion from 1990 to 2000, Congress and the President recognized the need to improve the ability of the nation’s infrastructure to withstand the impacts of natural and man-made hazards. DMA2k
included a provision allowing the President to provide technical and
financial
assistance to State and local governments in the implementation of
cost-effective predisaster mitigation measures (Title I Section 203
(b). The
act also requires the Director of the Congressional Budget Office to
complete a
study estimating the reduction in Federal disaster assistance “that has
resulted and is likely to result” from the act (Title II Section 209).
FEMA
charged the Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC) of the National
Institute of
Building Sciences (NIBS) with defining the parameters and methodology
needed to
assess future savings resulting from mitigation activities funded under
DMA2k.
MMC defined the parameters for the study in their report Parameters
for an
Independent Report To Assess the Future Benefits of Hazard Mitigation
Activities issued in July 2002. The report concludes that valid
models
exist to estimate the frequency, severity and likely losses caused by a
variety
of hazards. The report further concludes that models exist to
demonstrate the
cost reductions realized by various mitigation measures, thereby making
it
possible to design a program to estimate future savings. The
MMC report defines two approaches to mitigation activities: process and
projects. Process mitigation activities
lead to policies, practices and regulations that reduce risk and thus
loss.
Process activities include hazard, vulnerability and risk assessment,
planning,
education of decision makers and the public, and facilitating
selection, design,
funding and construction of projects. Process activities are ongoing
and can
generate savings far beyond their short term costs. Project mitigation
activities directly reduce the potential disaster related loss of a
specific
facility. Project activities include elevation or flood proofing a
facility,
structural reinforcement, ground stabilization, drainage improvements,
etc. The
MMC report recommended a two track study to assess the cost
effectiveness of
mitigation measures for future hazard events. One track consists of an
empirical analysis of national statistical data to determine the
savings
realized through application of specific mitigation activities. The
other track
consists of assessing the saving realized by specific communities
through completed
mitigation activities. Both tracks would include sensitivity analyses
to
evaluate the uncertainty in the predictive models and extrapolation of
current
data for estimating future costs. The
Applied Technology Council is currently conducting the recommended
study under
contract to MMC. Results of the study are currently scheduled to be
available
to the public in early 2005. Preliminary information, including the
selection
criteria for the study communities is not being released until the
study is complete. |