Usaid/Oas Caribbean Disaster Mitigation Project: Planning To Mitigate The Impacts of Natural Hazards in The Caribbean
Usaid/Oas Caribbean Disaster Mitigation Project: Planning To Mitigate The Impacts of Natural Hazards in The Caribbean
Usaid/Oas Caribbean Disaster Mitigation Project: Planning To Mitigate The Impacts of Natural Hazards in The Caribbean
December 1997
Unit of Sustainable Development and Environment
General Secretariat, Organization of American States
Acknowledgements
This workshop and manual were developed under a collaborative project between the Caribbean
Disaster Mitigation Project (CDMP) and the Disaster Emergency Response Management
Systems (DERMS) project. The CDMP is a five-year project, executed by the Organization of
American States, Unit of Sustainable Development and Environment (OAS/USDE) for the US
Agency for International Development, Caribbean Regional Program (USAID/CRP). Funding
for the CDMP is provided by USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance. DERMS is a two
year United Nations Development Programme-funded project, executed by CARICOM and
implemented by the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Response Agency (CDERA).
This manual was principally authored by David Brower, with assistance from Anna Schwab.
The author would like to thank Jennifer Worrell Campbell of USAID/CRP for initiating the
mitigation planning project, and Jan Vermeiren, Steven Stichter (OAS/CDMP) and Jeremy
Collymore and Judy Thomas of CDERA/DERMS for supervision of this project. The technical
working group for this project provided valuable insight and direction for the manual and
workshop. Members of the working group included Jennifer Worrell Campbell, Judy Thomas,
Jeremy Collymore, Steven Stichter, Aeden Earle and Paul Saunders (Jamaica Office of Disaster
Preparedness and Emergency Management).
Hazard Mitigation Planning Manual
I. Introduction
C. Types of Plans
B. Basic Studies
1. Hazard Identification and Analysis
2. Probability Analysis
3. Vulnerability Analysis
4. Capability Assessment
a. Legal Capability
b. Institutional Capability
c. Political Capability
d. Fiscal Capability
e. Technical Capability
f. Analysis and Evaluation of Capability Data
5. Conclusions (Acceptability)
C. Rationale
D. Goals
E. Objectives
Introduction I-1
The Four Elements of Comprehensive Emergency Management
Comprehensive emergency management is a widely used approach at all levels of government to
deal with the inevitability of natural hazards and their potential to cause disasters in a given
community. The components of a comprehensive emergency management system include:
Preparedness activities involve at least two types of activities. Structural activities
include actions to prepare for the imminent arrival of a hazard event, such as putting
up storm shutters and sandbagging. Non-structural activities involve taking steps to
minimize damage to personal property and to minimize harm to individuals. For
instance, anchoring boats and storing outdoor furniture in sheds prior to the arrival of
a hurricane will lessen the chance of damage to personal property. Following
recommendations to evacuate an area will lessen the chance of harm to individuals.
Preparedness activities include development of response procedures, design and
installation of warning systems, exercises to test emergency operational procedures
and training of emergency personnel.
Response activities occur during or immediately following the disaster and include
time-sensitive activities such as search and rescue operations, evacuation, emergency
medical care, food and shelter programs. Response activities are designed to meet the
urgent needs of disaster victims.
Recovery activities are emergency management actions that begin after the disaster,
as urgent needs are met. These actions are designed to put the community back
together and include repairs to roads, bridges and other public facilities, restoration of
power, water and other municipal services and other activities that help restore
normal operations to a community.
Mitigation activities reduce or eliminate the damages from hazardous events. These
activities can occur before, during and after a disaster and overlap all phases of
emergency management. Structural mitigation pertains to actions such as dam and
levee projects to protect against flooding, constructing disaster-resistant structures,
and retrofitting existing structures to withstand events. Non-structural mitigation
activities include development of land use plans, zoning ordinances, subdivision
regulations and tax incentives and disincentives to discourage development in certain
high-hazard areas. Mitigation also includes education programs for members of the
public about the hazards to which their community is vulnerable, as well as the
importance of mitigation and how to prepare their property to withstand a disaster.
Introduction I-3
Section II.
Rationale for Mitigation Planning: To Influence Decision-Makers
Mitigation is the only component of comprehensive emergency management that has the
potential to break the cycle of damage and reconstruction that can occur when a community is
subjected to repeated natural hazards. To be effective, a mitigation strategy must be in place and
ready for immediate implementation when the appropriate window of opportunity opens. This
can only be done through advance preparation; i.e., planning.
First and foremost, a hazard mitigation plan can be an effective vehicle for establishing
commitment to mitigation goals, objectives, policies and programs. By articulating what the
government hopes to achieve, the plan can serve to establish an important connection between
the public interest and mitigation measures to be employed. While the plan is useful for
articulating the vision and developing the programs and initiatives that encourage and support
community-based implementation, the real success or failure of the hazard mitigation plan
depends on decisions made by individuals—in both private and public sectors. To this end, the
hazard mitigation plan provides a medium to inform the community about natural hazards and
about mitigation, increasing public awareness of the risks present in the community, as well as
the resources available to reduce those risks. Achieving widespread public awareness of natural
hazards in a community will enable citizens to make informed decisions on where to live,
purchase property or locate a business and how to protect themselves and their property from the
impact of natural hazards. In the public sector, decision-makers who are well-informed and well-
guided by a mitigation plan can carry out their daily operational activities in a manner that will
include mitigation concepts. The plan, then, guides the implementation of goals, objectives,
policies and programs for both public and private sectors as it educates the community.
A meaningful mitigation plan also provides the impetus for the government to become a “good
leader” in the forefront of mitigation strategy. Governments at all levels, must, through their
own activities in the built environment, set a good example in terms of mitigation. All new
public facilities should be sited away from hazardous areas and should be built to meet or exceed
model building codes and standards or their substantial equivalent. Existing public structures
should be retrofitted to withstand the impact of natural hazards, protecting public investment. By
demonstrating first-hand the efficacy of mitigation, as well as the level of commitment the
government is willing to put forth, governments will provide incentive to private owners and
builders to carry out the goals and policies of the hazard mitigation plan as well.
Basic Studies
The hazard mitigation planning process begins with the recognition that systematic steps must be
taken to reduce the continued exposure to losses from natural hazards. The first of these steps
logically involves an accurate identification and definition of the natural hazards that affect an
area and the impacts, e.g. high wings, heavy rains, earth shaking, etc. they might have upon the
people and the built environment. Such an analysis is crucial to an effective hazard mitigation
plan, for while we know in general terms which broad geographic areas are subject to which
natural hazards, we need a clear understanding of the type and extent of the potential impacts of
hazards on communities to make decisions about which mitigation actions should be undertaken.
At a minimum, the major natural hazards should be described in terms of probability, frequency,
magnitude and distribution. The identification must be as site-specific as possible—what areas
are likely to be affected by what hazards and in what way? The hazards should be analyzed and
data presented in such a way so that it provides useful information in terms of mitigating that
particular hazard’s impact in that particular locality.
The next step in the background analysis involves an assessment of the potential level of
vulnerability within the jurisdiction posed by the hazards. A vulnerability analysis indicates what
is likely to be damaged by the identified hazards and how severely. The vulnerability analysis is
an assessment of the number of lives and the value of the property in those areas that may be
affected.
The capability analysis is an important component of the hazard mitigation planning process
because it identifies and evaluates existing systems of policies and practices that either reduce or
increase a jurisdiction’s vulnerability to natural hazards. The capability analysis also provides
critical information on which types of actions are feasible—in terms of financial resources,
political willpower, institutional framework, technical ability and legal authority. Furthermore,
the capability assessment can provide a mechanism to cite and take credit for those systems that
already exist and are successful in the jurisdiction. This is important to foster community support
for continuing or increasing mitigation efforts. Documentation of successful mitigation systems
may be necessary for receipt of some forms of disaster assistance.
The foregoing background studies will enable planners and policy-makers to articulate a level of
acceptance with regards to the natural hazards facing the jurisdiction. Plan makers can then come
to sound conclusions as to which hazards should be addressed and can determine the degree of
intensity that should be applied given the vulnerability of the area and the capability of the
government to respond.
Goals
Hazard mitigation goals should be broad in scope and far-reaching in application. This part of
the plan should present the vision of the government for mitigation in the area. The goals should
identify priorities, yet also acknowledge constraints.
Goal statements should reflect the government’s commitment to a comprehensive planning
approach; hazard mitigation goals should be fully integrated with other governmental activities.
At the same time, goals should also include substantive statements regarding the acceptable
levels of risk for the jurisdiction. This can be achieved by drawing on the plan’s basic studies,
which analyze probability, vulnerability, capability and acceptance data.
Objectives
Objectives are developed as a means of realizing a community’s hazard mitigation goals.
Objectives are more specific and tangible than goals: Rather than being long-term and general,
objectives should be achievable in a finite period of time and the results should be measurable.
Since objectives need to be attainable, they should be based on background studies contained in
the plan appendices, with direct reference to the capability assessment.
Comprehensive
The hazard mitigation plan should be as comprehensive as possible to cover all potential
mitigation opportunities. A comprehensive mitigation plan includes all prevalent hazards, strives
to achieve multiple objectives, covers a long time horizon and is consistent across
recommendations.
Multi-Hazard
An “all-hazards” basis for a mitigation plan makes the most efficient use of limited resources.
The plan should, therefore, deal with all possible natural hazards throughout the entire local
jurisdiction. At a minimum, the major natural hazards in the disaster area should be examined in
terms of probability, frequency, magnitude and distribution. Some other known hazards, or
“secondary” hazards should also be included in the analysis. For example, mudslides often
accompany severe flooding and should be recognized for their potential impact in addition to
that of the catalytic hazards.
In addition to primary and secondary natural hazards, the government should also assess
technological hazards and the potential impacts on human beings and their environment.
Mitigation strategy cannot deal exclusively with natural hazards and ignore technological
hazards if it is to be truly comprehensive. Furthermore, natural hazard events often trigger
technological hazards such as ruptured pipelines and building fires, clearly linking natural and
technological hazards.
Comprehensive planning also dictates that as many of the impacts of hazards as possible be
identified. A section in the plan regarding the socio-economic implications of a disaster could
prove invaluable in assessing the entire disaster scenario. Elements of such an analysis should
include potential impacts due to the loss of jobs, recovery rate of destroyed and damaged
businesses, property tax revenue shortfalls, disrupted real estate markets, migration and
disruption of family lives. While many of these variables are subject to fluctuations due to
factors other than disaster occurrences, the economic indicators are still useful for the selection
and initiation of appropriate mitigation action.
Multi-Objective
The goals and objectives articulated in the hazard mitigation plan need to be comprehensive in
scope and cover a wide range of potential mitigative action in both public and private sectors.
However, goals and objectives should not compete. Hazard mitigation has a much greater
likelihood for success when goals are effectively combined. Common hazard mitigation goals
which can be simultaneously achieved include securing public safety, reducing hazard losses,
reducing unnecessary expenditures, eliminating redundancy, lessening exposure to liability and
speeding economic recovery.
Furthermore, many mitigation objectives can be accomplished by dovetailing other types of
goals or joining forces with other programs and authorities. All communities are encouraged to
include the goal of protecting the natural and beneficial values of floodplains and wetlands
within their mitigation plans. For example, designating a vulnerable floodplain area for open-
space, recreational use, reservoir area or public park can achieve hazard reduction objectives as
Long-Term
To be truly comprehensive, a hazard mitigation plan must have a long-range horizon. While
particular plan objectives and specific projects and actions may have a fixed time period within
which they are to be achieved or carried out, the scope of the hazard mitigation plan as a whole
must be broader than the time frame dictated by individual component parts.
Internally Consistent
It is important that mitigation plans be multi-hazard and multi-objective. However, the pursuit of
comprehensiveness should not be undertaken at the expense of internal consistency. Risk
reduction measures for one natural hazard must be compatible with risk reduction measures for
other probable natural hazards. For example, certain techniques for elevating flood prone
structures may make a structure more susceptible to damage from an earthquake. Similarly,
retrofitting a building to reduce earthquake damage may be a poor investment if the building is
flood prone. On the other hand, tying down a manufactured home can be an effective technique
for mitigating wind, flood and seismic hazards.
Furthermore, risk reduction measures for natural hazards must also be compatible with risk
reduction measures for technological hazards and vice versa. When hazard mitigation options are
considered, care must be taken to avoid solutions that may increase the risk of technological
events, such as elevating chemical storage facilities to mitigate flood hazard without addressing
seismic risk. Additionally, technological hazards should be minimized for natural hazards, such
as using flexible pipes in seismic areas or protecting submerged pipes from flood scour.
Windows of Opportunity
Mitigation plans typically seek to identify the optimum points for implementing mitigation
actions within the comprehensive emergency management (CEM) cycle. Strategies for including
mitigation as part of the activities carried out during the preparation, response and recovery
phases of a disaster are critical for victims of that particular event, as well as help ensure these
disaster victims will not be victims again when the next natural hazard occurs.
While mitigative action taken during phases of CEM are significant in reducing potential losses,
a truly comprehensive mitigation plan also includes strategies for incorporating mitigation into
the day to day operations of the government. The mitigation plan should specify a process for
identifying all “windows of opportunity,” so that mitigation concepts can be considered when
carrying out routine government business. Mitigation should be addressed as an aspect of land
use policy, including zoning and subdivision regulations, building inspections, environmental
impact review, highway and street planning, capital improvement planning, tax and spending
policies and all other relevant activities of government, rather than solely as an issue of
emergency management.
The integration of mitigation concepts into the normal function of government is particularly
important in the areas of land use law and construction and building regulations. For instance,
Cost-Effective
Every mitigative action proposed in the mitigation plan must address the question of cost-
effectiveness: will the proposed measure reduce future disaster response and recovery costs more
than the cost of implementing the measure? The hazard mitigation plan should establish in
advance the criteria to be used to assess the cost-effectiveness of individual project proposals so
that all projects receive uniform objective analysis. Though it is difficult to factor in the
monetary value of human life when calculating the cost-effectiveness of a mitigation measure,
certain costs can, and must, be examined.
One method is to use the value of the damages suffered in the recent disaster that could have
been prevented by a mitigation measure as a basis for comparison against the cost of the
proposed measure. Next, the magnitude and probability of the event’s recurrence interval should
be factored in. If the damages received were from a relatively small, and more frequent,
earthquake, hurricane or flood, then it is reasonable to expect that these damages might be
repeated several times over the life of a given structure. Thus, a mitigation measure could cost
more than the current damages, but still be justifiable. Historical loss data can also be used. For
instance, paid insurance claims and previous outlays for disaster assistance should be considered
when evaluating cost effectiveness. Normal maintenance costs can be used if the situation is a
chronic one. There are also economic and cost-benefit models available that can be used.
Environmentally Sound
The hazard mitigation plan should incorporate environmental principles. Care must be taken that
policies intended to foster mitigation are not undertaken at the expense of the area’s
environmental integrity. The plan should strictly adhere to all applicable laws, regulations and
ordinances regarding the environment.
The natural environment can play a crucial role in mitigating the impacts of natural hazards. As
the connection between networks of streams, rivers, adjacent wetlands, soils, vegetation, dunes,
beaches and other features of the natural environment are increasingly studied and understood,
natural resource and environmental management are being recognized as vital for emergency
management. This “natural infrastructure” can perform a mitigative function in the human
environment, protecting lives and structures from the full impact of natural hazards by providing
flood control, wind resistance, minimization of storm surge, etc. The hazard mitigation plan
must promote efforts to enhance rather than hinder the mitigative ability of the natural
environment before all such areas are developed and their mitigative value destroyed.
Types of Plans
Hazard mitigation plans can be one of a wide variety of types of plan; the particular format
chosen by a government should best suit the role the hazard mitigation plan is expected to fulfill
for that jurisdiction. Some areas may choose to create a hazard mitigation plan that is a stand-
alone, single purpose plan. In this instance, care should be taken that all the statutory
requirements for plan creation and adoption are followed so that the plan can operate as a
freestanding document.
Post-disaster Plans. Governments have traditionally prepared stand-alone mitigation plans in
the wake of a disaster, a practice that has the advantage of generating public support for
mitigation while the obvious need for it is so readily apparent. Unfortunately, these post-disaster
plans are often prepared without adequate background studies and under tremendous time
pressures and may not adequately address mitigation issues outside the context of the immediate
disaster.
Emergency Management Plan. Other jurisdictions may include the hazard mitigation plan as a
component of the emergency management plan. These plans deal with all four components of
emergency management and include directions for the government’s responsibilities during
The private sector should also be involved in the mitigation plan formulation process. Support
from the private sector is often essential to successful implementation of mitigation strategies.
Involvement of the private sector in the early stages of the planning process may facilitate
understanding and support for implementation of mitigation measures. Private sector participants
should include realtors, developers, representatives of the insurance industry, builders, architects,
investors, farmers, tourists and business leaders. Consolidating private-sector expertise and
influence will enable plan-makers to multiply the benefits of mitigation strategies by
strengthening the plan’s base of support and encourage private sector participants to undertake
mitigation measures in their own companies and communities.
Citizen input into the plan formulation process is also essential. Public participation involves
including citizen groups in developing mitigation strategy from the beginning. This will help to
guarantee that the public is knowledgeable of and committed to the strategy. Some members of
the public may even be able to assist with data collection and plan writing, making the planning
process more efficient and reflective of local concerns. While government officials will make
final policy decisions, citizen participation is designed to give the public the opportunity to voice
its views on policy items. The general public often bears the brunt of policies and projects
designed to reduce disaster costs and usually at the worst time—after the disaster event. Early
public support of the mitigation strategy will also help stem the tide of requests for special
exemptions after a disaster.
Basic Studies
Basic studies that must be performed before a mitigation plan can be formulated include
identifying and analyzing the hazards which affect the area, assessing the present and future
vulnerability of people and property to each type of applicable hazard, performing an assessment
of the capability of the area to effectively mitigate those hazards and performing an acceptability
analysis to evaluate the likely effects of hazards.
Probability Analysis
After identifying the hazards that affect the planning area and analyzing the impacts from those
hazards, a probability analysis should be undertaken. A probability analysis provides an estimate
of the probability of each hazard affecting an area or region, or how likely it is that each type of
hazard will occur there.
A chart showing the relative probability from each hazard can be constructed fairly easily. This
type of analysis does not necessarily require a detailed quantitative analysis of the probability of
each type or hazard event, but can be constructed after careful consideration of the data gathered
and analyzed in the preceding step. For example, relative probability from each natural hazard
(hurricanes, flooding, thunderstorm, tornado, earthquake, wildfire) can be categorized as low,
medium or high. A chart, such as shown below, can be constructed to show the relative
probability from all natural hazards under consideration.
To complete this table, it is necessary to select appropriate measures to evaluate the probability
from each hazard. Such measures could include:
• the location of the area with respect to exposure to past hazard events;
• the frequency with which each hazard is likely to occur in the area, based on
historical records and trends;
• the relative strength of a typical hazard event which has affected the area.
Vulnerability Analysis
Hazards are natural occurrences. A hazard area may or may not pose problems to people; a
hazard area is only a problem when human activity gets in the way of the impacts that occur as a
matter of course during and after a hazard. Vulnerability to a natural hazard can be defined as the
extent to which people will experience harm and property will be damaged from that hazard.
Natural hazards impact human and animal life, real and personal property, communications and
transportation networks and the social fabric of communities and regions. Hazards may result in
loss of life or injury to people and livestock; loss of or damage to homes, businesses and
industries; loss or damage to automobiles, furnishings, records and documents; damages or
interruptions to power and telephone lines, damage or closing of roads, railroads, airports and
waterways; and general disruption of life.
Vulnerability to natural hazards exists both at the present time and in the future. The present
level of development and infrastructure generates a set of conditions that result in every area
having some degree of vulnerability to natural hazards. That degree of vulnerability will change
in the future as an area experiences greater development and/or implements greater hazard
mitigation efforts. Vulnerability can increase or decrease in the future. Therefore, we can speak
of both present vulnerability and future vulnerability. Each of these types of vulnerability to
natural hazards will be detailed below.
Present Vulnerability
Present vulnerability can be defined as the degree of harm to people and damage to property an
area may experience from a natural hazard occurrence today. This vulnerability is determined as
a result of the likelihood of various types of hazards affecting the area and the current
development of that area. Current development affects an area's vulnerability in the following
ways:
the population of the area: the greater the population, particularly in locations susceptible
to impacts from hazard events, the greater the vulnerability due to injury to and loss of
life;
A chart can be constructed to show relative present vulnerability to each natural hazard. The
process is similar to that used in constructing the previous chart for probability assessment. The
chart will serve to demonstrate the planners’ assessment of the relative vulnerability to each
hazard in a qualitative, rather than a quantitative, sense. This chart will identify those hazards to
which the area has the greatest present vulnerability. This will enable hazard mitigation efforts to
Present Vulnerability
Hurricane Low Moderate High
Hurricane
Volcano
Earthquake
Wildfire
Flooding
Future Vulnerability
Future vulnerability can be thought of as a measure of the extent to which people will experience
harm and property would be damaged by a hazard event if a projected scenario of development
were to occur.
An area’s vulnerability will change with time. For instance, if current development patterns are
projected into the future, it is possible to develop estimates of the population and amount of
development that will exist in an area at some future point. If an area’s population is currently
growing at the rate of five percent, it is possible to project the population five or ten years in the
future. If current development patterns were assumed to continue, the number of additional
housing units, commercial establishments and businesses could also be projected for similar time
periods. Transportation, utility and communications infrastructure is likely to increase also.
Thus, given an increasing population and increasing development, it might appear that an area
would have a greater vulnerability to hazards in the future.
Vulnerability will increase markedly if development occurs in areas particularly susceptible to
adverse impacts from natural hazards and/or without the presence of effective mitigation
measures. For example, in the absence of effective hurricane standards in an official building
code, an area’s vulnerability to hurricane hazard may increase dramatically, even if development
is limited to those areas considered at relatively low risk to hurricane occurrence.
Planning for redevelopment in the wake of a natural disaster can also reduce an area’s future
vulnerability. Plans should be formulated that would allow and encourage redevelopment in a
manner which would result in a lower vulnerability in the future, i.e., plans should be made that
would allow for the correction of what may be considered current development “mistakes” from
a hazard mitigation perspective.
Therefore, the future vulnerability of an area is strongly influenced by that area’s choices of the
amount, type and location of development and transportation and communications links. Careful
planning can help avoid a dramatic increase in future vulnerability. Likewise, implementing
Future Vulnerability
Hazard Low Moderate High
Hurricane
Volcano
Earthquake
Wildfire
Flooding
Capability Assessment
The capability assessment describes the legal authority vested in the government to pursue
measures to mitigate the impact of natural hazards. This section describes how the capability
assessment should also be used to evaluate the area’s political willpower, institutional
framework, technical know-how and ability to pay for mitigation. The capability of all levels of
government, as well as the contributions made by non-governmental organizations (churches,
charities, community relief funds, the Red Cross, hospitals, for profit and non-profit businesses)
and by the private sector should be included, with a description of their utility to the jurisdiction
in terms of hazard mitigation. In other words, before formulating the plan itself, it is important
to understand the status of current policy and practice and how mitigation programs and
activities that will be proposed in the hazard mitigation plan will fit into the existing systems.
However, the capability assessment is more than a mere inventory of existing mitigation
measures and organizations with hazard mitigation responsibility. The capability section is an
important component of the mitigation plan because it identifies and evaluates existing systems
that either reduce or increase a jurisdiction’s vulnerability to natural hazards. This includes
evaluation of the “de facto” mitigative measures—those which may be designed for another
purpose, but which, nevertheless, have an effect (either positive or negative) on mitigation. The
capability assessment can, therefore, provide a mechanism to cite and take credit for those
systems that exist and are working to reduce hazard vulnerability (whether such measures were
designed for hazard mitigation purposes or not). This list of “success stories” helps avoid
Legal Capability
Governments of different countries and different levels of government within one country
operate under different sources of authority. However, as a general rule, with proper enabling
legislation in place, most governments possess the power to engage in various hazard mitigation
activities. The capability section of the hazard mitigation plan should analyze each of the legal
powers available to that particular government to identify which can be wielded to craft hazard
mitigation measures and also assess legislation that may impose limits on certain mitigation
efforts.
Within the limits set by each country’s legal system, most government powers fall into one of
four basic groups (although some governmental activities may be classified as more than one
type of power): regulation, acquisition, taxation and spending. Hazard mitigation measures can
be carried out under each of the four types of powers, as described below:
Regulation. Governments are generally granted broad regulatory powers in their jurisdictions,
enabling the enactment and enforcement of ordinances to regulate or prohibit conditions or
actions that may endanger the public’s health and safety. Such authority is known generally as
the “police power,” and encompasses the concept of hazard mitigation as a means of protecting
the public.
One important regulatory power exercised by some governments is that of building inspection.
Typically, such legislation deals with the construction of buildings, installation of plumbing,
electrical and heating systems, building maintenance and other matters. Through this type of
regulation, the government can be directly involved in reducing the community’s vulnerability
by requiring that all new construction comply to strict mitigation standards.
Typically, regulatory powers are also the most basic manner in which a government can control
the use of land within its jurisdiction. Through various land use regulatory powers, a government
can control the amount, timing, density, quality and location of new development; all these
characteristics of growth can determine the level of vulnerability of the community in the event
of a natural hazard. Land use regulatory powers include the power to engage in planning, enact
and enforce zoning ordinances, floodplain and subdivision controls, as well as regulate other
aspects of growth. Carefully planned and executed land use regulations can be effective in
preventing unsuitable development from occurring in hazard-prone areas.
Acquisition. The power of acquisition can be a useful tool for pursuing mitigation goals.
Governments may find the most effective method for completely “hazard-proofing” a particular
piece of property or area is to acquire the property, thus removing the land from the private
market and eliminating or reducing the possibility of inappropriate development occurring.
Legislation typically empowers units of government to acquire property for public purpose by
gift, grant, devise, bequest, exchange, purchase, lease, or eminent domain. The local government
may acquire the hazard-prone property in fee, or may obtain a lesser interest in the land, such as
an easement to keep the land in a natural state. Some communities may also employ a transfer of
development rights (TDR) program to keep hazardous land free from development while
Institutional Capability
The capability of the government to develop and implement a hazard mitigation program is
affected by the institutional framework in which it will operate. Therefore, a description of the
type of government, including an “inventory” of key decision-making positions, both long-range
and day-to-day is an essential component of the hazard mitigation plan’s capability assessment.
The analysis should include all relevant governmental agencies, departments and offices with
responsibility for the various stages of emergency management (preparation, response and
recovery) as well as for mitigation. The responsibilities of both elected and appointed officials,
as well as career governmental workers should be noted. The assessment should specify who is
responsible for police, fire, garbage, roads, parks, planning, zoning, building code enforcement,
tax assessments, water and sewer, and other services. The capability section should also analyze
local, national and regional government relationships and identify opportunities for cooperation
and optimization of pooled resources.
Political Capability
The capability of a government is obviously linked to its political capability. Many of the
activities carried out by the officials listed in the institutional framework analysis will be
politicians, whose decisions are sometimes swayed by the political climate of the moment rather
than by the long-range benefit to the community. Analyzing how mitigation can be inserted into
everyday decision-making as a routine course can go a long way to de-politicizing the issue. If
mitigation comes to the forefront of the government’s important issues, politicians cannot do
otherwise than promote mitigation. Public education and awareness campaigns about the
economic efficiency of mitigative measures in the long run can help foster its general acceptance
by citizens and in turn by politicians.
Technical Capability
If the concept of hazard mitigation is being introduced to an area for the first time, or if a more
experienced jurisdiction wishes to upgrade its level of mitigation, technical know-how may be at
a premium. Often a major impediment to effective emergency management policies and
programs, including mitigation, is the lack of technical expertise. Communities are faced with
the task of identifying and assessing hazards, predicting the occurrence of disasters, gauging the
level of intervention needed and designing and implementing effective measures. Fortunately,
there are many manuals and other documents available that can be used to help identify and
assess various hazards. Technical manuals are also available that detail the forces that mitigation
techniques are engineered to withstand, construction methods, costs (complete with formulas to
make adjustments to current values), options and alternatives, cost/benefits, the pros and cons of
each technique and even suggestions on how they can be financed, adopted or implemented.
Conclusions (Acceptability)
An acceptability assessment is a useful analytical step that can help prioritize and focus limited
resources on the most critical of its mitigation needs. The government may wish to include
documentation of this assessment in an appendix to the hazard mitigation plan. The purpose of
developing and evaluating conclusions, sometimes referred to as an acceptability assessment, is
to determine whether additional hazard mitigation efforts should be undertaken and, if so, which
hazards, geographic areas and response capabilities will be strengthened. A determination can be
For example, assume that the analysis thus far has determined that hurricanes pose a high risk to
the planning area, that the present vulnerability is moderate, the future vulnerability is likely to
be high, the present capability is moderate and that the future capability is likely to be low. The
acceptability would likely be low or moderate, because this scenario shows conditions worsening
and capability decreasing for a hazard with a high likelihood for causing harm and damage. In
another example, assume that analyses have determined that earthquake pose low risk, the
present vulnerability is moderate, the future vulnerability is likely to remain moderate, the
present capability is moderate and will likely remain at that level in the future. In this case, the
area's acceptability would probably be determined to be moderate to high.
In short, by reading across the rows for each hazard, planners come to an assessment of where
the planning area lies in terms of each hazard. The planner can now make a judgment of that
position, i.e., is that an acceptable situation for the area? In some cases, the answer may be
“yes,” in other cases, the answer is likely to be “no.” If the answer is “yes” then there is no need
to implement additional mitigation measures for that hazard at that time. However, the
acceptability should be reviewed periodically as it may change with time. If the answer is “no,”
then the mitigation plan will need to develop goals, objectives and policies and actions to
improve the situation to an acceptable point.
By completing this type of analysis for each hazard, the result will be a chart that provides an
indication of the relative acceptability of the situation with regard to each hazard that is likely to
affect the area. This analysis should be repeated for each major area in the jurisdiction, since
conditions will vary throughout the planning area according to localized conditions. This
analysis will then allow officials and planners to design a hazard mitigation plan to effectively
increase the area's capability to respond to the hazards which have the greatest effect and to
undertake actions to decrease the effects of those hazards to which the area is most vulnerable.
With regard to each type of natural hazard, possible actions range from doing nothing to an
attempt to completely eliminate potential damages to life and property. In most instances,
officials will decide to undertake some mitigation measures. That strategy will usually be
Rationale
When formulating the rationale section of the hazard mitigation plan, plan-makers will draw on
all of the accumulated information contained in the basic studies. It is the resulting knowledge
emanating from these studies that establishes the need for the existence of the mitigation plan.
The plan should refer directly to the types of hazards to which the planning area is subject, their
probability and magnitude and the level of vulnerability of the people and the built environment
to these hazards. The plan should also refer to the current and/or future capabilities of the
jurisdiction to mitigate the impacts of these hazards. The introduction to the hazard mitigation
plan should also include a definition section and include all terms and phrases dealing with
hazards, mitigation, emergency management, disaster relief, planning, government and law. This
will help avoid confusion and misinterpretation based on divergent meanings of words.
The rationale section should clearly indicate that the plan is an expression of the government’s
commitment to mitigation goals, objectives, policies and programs and that the plan’s mission is
to coordinate multiple goals, objectives, policies and programs to the greatest extent practicable.
The introduction to the hazard mitigation plan also provides an opportunity for the government
to establish the connection between the public interest and the mitigation goals, objectives,
policies and programs outlined in the plan. The rationale section should also emphasize the
utility of the hazard mitigation plan as an information vehicle, to educate the public and private
sectors and policy-makers about natural hazards and about mitigation.
Goals
Goals are statements of desirable future conditions that are to be achieved. Goals should be
expressed in general terms and are usually descriptive rather than quantified statements. A goal
is a desirable condition that is valued for itself; a goal is not an instrument to achieve something
else. Goals should be structured as positive statements that are attainable rather than negative
observations about the planning area.
Goals may originate from several sources. These sources include:
• community concerns and desires, reflecting a participatory goal setting process;
• needs for accommodating change such as increased population and development and
adjustments to infrastructure;
Objectives
Objectives provide intermediate steps toward achieving a goal. Objectives are more tangible and
specific than goals and may be quantified. It may be easiest to think of objectives as a
progression of steps toward a goal. Objectives may be used as a checklist. When an objective is
accomplished, it may be checked off and progress oriented toward accomplishing another
objective. Whereas goals are general statements that may never be fully realized, objectives
should be capable of being realized. Typically, several objectives are identified for each goal that
is developed.
To continue with one example used above, consider the goal of restricting future vulnerability to
hurricane threat to the level of present vulnerability. Objectives to accomplish that goal might
include some of the following:
revising local building and development ordinances to require construction practices
which have been determined to result in decreased damages from hurricanes;
prohibiting development in areas particularly vulnerable to storm surge, high winds
and flooding; and
tying new development to provision of additional highway travel lanes, to maintain a
particular level of emergency evacuation capacity.
When developing alternative means to accomplish goals and objectives, several windows of
opportunity should be considered. There are many different times at which hazard mitigation
efforts can be integrated with other community planning and development activities. Some
windows of opportunity occur in day-to-day activities, projects, preparation for hazard events,
response to hazard events and recovery efforts. A chart like the one that follows can be an
Earthquake:
Present
Future
Wildfire:
Present
Future
Flooding:
Present
Future
When considering day to day activities, the window of opportunity is always open, except
during hazard events. Typical actions that could be included in this category would be
administration of the building or development code, keeping drainage ditches clear of debris and
ensuring emergency communication devices are in proper working order.
When considering projects, the primary question to address is: how will this project affect the
future vulnerability of the locality? Projects are most effective if they will result in a reduction
of vulnerability to hazard events in the future. Examples of this type of action include siting
public structures in areas with a relatively low vulnerability to natural hazards, promoting the
use of underground utility lines in new development, stabilization of sand dunes in coastal areas.
Preparation activities involve at least two types of activities. Structural activities include actions
to prepare for the imminent arrival of a hazard event, such as putting up storm shutters and
sandbagging. Non-structural activities involve taking steps to minimize damage to personal
property and to minimize harm to individuals. For instance, anchoring boats and storing yard
The Caribbean Disaster Mitigation Project (CDMP) is a coordinated effort to promote the
adoption of natural disaster mitigation and preparedness practices by both the public and private
sectors in the Caribbean region through a series of activities carried out over a five-year period.
The CDMP is funded by the USAID Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) and
implemented by the Organization of American States/Unit of Sustainable Development and
Environment (OAS/USDE) for the USAID Caribbean Regional Program (USAID/CRP).
The CDMP provides a framework for collaboration with the Caribbean region to establish
sustainable public and private sector mechanisms for natural disaster mitigation that will
measurably lessen loss of life, reduce the potential for physical and economic damage, and
shorten the disaster recovery period over the long term. Project activities vary according to
location, contents and implementation strategy, but all contribute to attainment of the overall
CDMP goal: a more disaster-resistant environment for the people who live, work and invest in
this hazard-prone region.
Project activities include: 1) natural hazard risk audits for electrical utilities and other
infrastructure systems and key lifeline facilities; 2) hazard mapping to support improved
planning and location of physical development; 3) promotion of loss reduction incentives and
hazard mitigation in the property insurance industry; 4) assisting countries to adopt improved
building standards and practices and training of builders, architects and artisans in their use; 5)
stimulating community-based disaster preparedness and mitigation efforts with support of the
private sector, and, 6) post disaster mitigation planning and program design.
The CDMP will build on past and ongoing regional initiatives in disaster preparedness and
mitigation, and will promote technology transfer and institutional capacity building through
direct involvement of professional associations, bankers, builders, insurance companies and
reinsurers, NGOs, PVOs, community groups and government organizations in project activities.
For further information please contact:
Mr. Jan Vermeiren, Project Manager Ms. Jennifer Worrell Campbell, Regional Disaster Advisor
Organization of American States Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance
Unit of Sustainable Development and U.S. Agency for International Development
Environment 2 Haining Road
1889 F Street N.W. Kingston 5, Jamaica
Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (876) 926-4998
Phone: (202) 458-3006 Fax: (876) 929-9944
Fax: (202) 458-3560 E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]