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

Can planning mitigate this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

PLAN STATUS Approved PlanNo Plan Mean DAMAGE TOTALS 30,000, ,000, ,000, U.S. Dollars

Hazard Summary Hazard# of Events# of Declared Counties % Fire Flood/Severe Storm Hurricane Tropical Storm Tornado Winter Storm/Freeze

Hazard Summary (cont.) HazardPer Capita Damage Plan - NOPlan - YES Fire $ Flood/Severe Storm $ Hurricane $ Tropical Storm $ Tornado $ Winter Storm/Freeze $

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

Rebuilding Damage Are Local Mitigation Strategies Getting the Job Done?

Recommendations Policy –Require mitigation –Plan quality –Incorporation

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

Conclusion

Jane E. Rovins, MPH, CEM, FPEM Questions?