The variational effects of jurisdictional attributes on hazard mitigation planning costs

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
Andrea M. Jackman, PhD ◽  
Mario G. Beruvides, PhD, PE
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Management ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Hazard Mitigation ◽  
Disaster Mitigation ◽  
Influential Factor ◽  
Mitigation Planning ◽  
Follow Up Studies ◽  
Final Rule ◽  
The Cost

Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and Federal Emergency Management Agency's subsequent Interim Final Rule, the requirement was placed on local governments to author and gain approval for a Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) for the areas under their jurisdiction. Low completion percentages for HMPs—less than one-third of eligible governments— were found by an analysis conducted 3 years after the final deadline for the aforementioned legislation took place. Follow-up studies showed little improvement at 5 and 8 years after the deadline. Based on these results, a previous study hypothesized that the cost of creating a HMP might be an influential factor in explaining why most jurisdictions had failed to write or gain approval for a HMP. The frequency of natural hazards experienced by the planning jurisdiction, the number of jurisdictions participating in the plan, and the population and population density were found to explain more than half of the variation in HMP costs. This study is a continuation of that effort, finding that there are significant differences in cost both across ranges of values for the jurisdictional attributes and single-jurisdictional versus multijurisdictional plans.

How much do hazard mitigation plans cost? An analysis of federal grant data

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 271
Author(s):  
Andrea M. Jackman, PhD ◽  
Mario G. Beruvides, PhD, PE
Keyword(s):  
Local Governments ◽  
Predictive Power ◽  
Hazard Mitigation ◽  
Disaster Mitigation ◽  
Matrix Analysis ◽  
Federal Grant ◽  
Interaction Terms ◽  
Final Rule ◽  
The Cost

Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and Federal Emergency Management Agency’s subsequent Interim Final Rule, the requirement was placed on local governments to author and gain approval for a Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) for the areas under their jurisdiction. Low completion percentages for HMPs—less than one-third of eligible governments—were found by an analysis conducted 3 years after the final deadline for the aforementioned legislation took place. Follow-up studies showed little improvement at 5 and 8 years after the deadline. It was hypothesized that the cost of a HMP is a significant factor in determining whether or not a plan is completed. A study was conducted using Boolean Matrix Analysis methods to determine what, if any, characteristics of a certain community will most influence the cost of a HMP. The frequency of natural hazards experienced by the planning area, the number of jurisdictions participating in the HMP, the population, and population density were found to significantly affect cost. These variables were used in a regression analysis to determine their predictive power for cost. It was found that along with two interaction terms, the variables explain approximately half the variation in HMP cost.

Local hazard mitigation plans: A preliminary estimation of state-level completion from 2004 to 2009

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 121
Author(s):  
Andrea M. Jackman, PhD ◽  
Mario G. Beruvides, PhD, PE
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Management ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Local Level ◽  
Hazard Mitigation ◽  
State Level ◽  
Initial Study ◽  
Disaster Mitigation ◽  
Hazard Vulnerability ◽  
Us Census

According to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and subsequent federal policy, local governments are required to have a Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) written and approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to be eligible for federal mitigation assistance. This policy took effect on November 1, 2004. Using FEMA’s database of approved HMPs and US Census Bureau’s 2002 Survey of Local Governments, it is estimated that 3 years after the original deadline, 67 percent of the country’s active local governments were without an approved HMP. A follow-up examination in 2009 of the eight states with the lowest completion percentages did not indicate significant improvement following the initial study and revealed inconsistencies in plan completion data over time. The completion percentage varied greatly by state and did not appear to follow any expected pattern such as wealth or hazard vulnerability that might encourage prompt completion of a plan. Further, the results indicate that ~92 percent of the approved plans were completed by a multijurisdictional entity, which suggests single governments seldom complete and gain approval for plans. Based on these results, it is believed that state-level resolution is not adequate for explaining the variation of plan completion, and further study at the local level is warranted.

scholarly journals A National Evaluation of State and Territory Roles in Hazard Mitigation: Building Local Capacity to Implement FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (23) ◽  
pp. 13
Author(s):  
Gavin Smith ◽  
Olivia Vila
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Management ◽  
National Survey ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Technical Assistance ◽  
Hazard Mitigation ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Low Levels ◽  
Resilient Infrastructure ◽  
Survey Responses

This article describes the findings of a national survey of State Hazard Mitigation Officers (SHMOs) in U.S. states and territories in order to gain a greater understanding of the roles that they play in assisting local governments to build the capacity required to successfully develop and implement Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-funded Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grants, an important but understudied aspect of hazard mitigation governance. The research questions focus on: (1) How states and territories enable local governments to develop and implement HMA grants and (2) SHMOs’ opinions regarding their perceived capacity and effectiveness in assisting local governments to develop and implement HMA grants. Results show that while states and territories are relatively well-equipped to perform general administrative duties required by FEMA, SHMOs expressed wide variation in their capacity to assist local governments to develop and implement HMA grants. This was particularly evident with regard to the delivery of specific technical assistance measures required to develop HMA grants. Survey responses also highlight modest levels of participation in FEMA-designed efforts to delegate responsibility to states and territories and low levels of participation in programs that offer pre-application funding to local governments to help them develop HMA grant applications. These findings should concern FEMA as the agency embarks on the implementation of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, an ambitious pre-disaster hazard mitigation grant initiative.

Using National Financial Incentives to Build Local Resiliency: The U.S. Disaster Mitigation Act

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 164-171
Author(s):  
Kenneth C. Topping ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Hazard Mitigation ◽  
Disaster Mitigation ◽  
Federal Grants ◽  
Local Resilience ◽  
State And Local ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) which requires adoption of multihazard mitigation plans as a precondition of local government eligibility for federal pre-disaster and postdisaster hazard mitigation grants. Its underlying purpose was to encourage local governments to systematically plan for reducing risks and future disaster losses before requesting federal grants to execute hazard mitigation projects. This paper examines the DMA 2000 legislation, its purposes, and the responses to it by state and local governments. Among other things the paper: 1) describes DMA 2000 statutory requirements, 2) assesses overall participation by region, 3) uses the State of California as a case study to examines hazard mitigation plan compliance issues, and 4) explores long-term implications of this broad national effort to use financial incentives to increase local resilience. By early 2009, 18,783 locally adopted hazard mitigation plans had been approved by FEMA. Although community resilience outcomes cannot be truly assessed without further research, the magnitude of this response implies substantial long-term local capacity building benefits within the U.S. This experience should also be the subject of comparative research regarding parallel efforts elsewhere.

Special Issue on Effective Emergency Management: A Geographic Approach

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-4
Author(s):  
Haruo Hayashi ◽  
Go Urakawa
Keyword(s):  
Local Government ◽  
Emergency Management ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Damage Assessment ◽  
Government Agency ◽  
Disaster Mitigation ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Tokyo Metropolitan ◽  
Special Project ◽  
Housing Damage

This special issue introduces 12 papers on a variety of best practices for effective emergency management using geospatial database and geographic information system (GIS). The first seven papers are grouped under GIS in action, show how GIS is used for different disaster reduction services. In response to the 2007 Niigata-ken Chuetsu-oki Earthquake, GIS maps have been a part of Niigata PrefectureGovernment Emergency Operation Center work to aid in decisionmaking by providing Common Operational Picture (COP) as detailed by Tamura et al. A victim database was used as the key for integrated victim support in Kashiwazaki City in long-term recovery as detailed by Inoguchi et al. The success of GIS-based postdisaster operations vastly impacts on local governments in Wajima City, hit by the 2007 Noto Hanto Earthquake, where the use of GIS continued and expanded as an effective tool for building local government agency response capacity as detailed by Ura et al. In Kashiwazaki, the failure to apply municipal integrated GIS in postdisaster operations changed GIS policy to a less expensive service-oriented GIS readily available for local government agency use as detailed by Honma et al. A nationwide GIS map archive for researchers contains maps created at different disaster response stages as detailed by Nawa et al. Visualization of disaster impact using GIS is a powerful tool for disaster mitigation and preparedness, with impact by a worst-case-scenario magnitude 7.3 Tokyo Metropolitan earthquake as detailed by Suzuki et al. Design principles for visualization are reviewed by Urabe et al. In Japan, damage certification is used as the basis for deciding public and private support eligibility for quake victims, making it imperative for local governments to issue certification based on housing damage assessment results as soon and as fairly as possible. Based on practices in Kashiwazaki City following the 2007 Niigataken Chuetsu-oki earthquake, damage to 64,000 household footprints was assessed within one month as detailed in the last five papers. Two papers cover GIS-based data acquisition in housing damage assessment - PDA-assisted real-time input as detailed by Tonosaki et al., and OCRassisted paper result conversion as detailed by Higashida et al. In addition to housing damage assessment data, preexisting residential and housing databases should be integrated. Basic principles for creating this new database using GeoWrap are detailed by Yoshitomi et al. and implemented for Kashiwazaki as detailed by Matsuoka et al. In anticipating future disasters, a proposal to integrate local government operations both daily routine and emergency management was made by Urakawa et al. We appreciate the support of the Special Project for Governance in Ubiquitous Society (2007-2009) by the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) and the Special Project for Metropolitan Earthquake Disaster Mitigation in Tokyo Metropolitan Area (2007-2011) by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan (MEXT). Lastly, we would like to appreciate all the authors for their wonderful contribution as well as all the blind reviewers for their dedication to make this issue more valuable.

Accounting for vulnerable populations in rural hazard mitigation plans: Results of a survey of emergency managers

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 201
Author(s):  
Jennifer A. Horney, PhD, MPH ◽  
Mai Nguyen, PhD ◽  
John Cooper, PhD ◽  
Matt Simon, MA ◽  
Kristen Ricchetti-Masterson, MSPH ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Emergency Management ◽  
Vulnerable Populations ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Census Data ◽  
Hazard Mitigation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
Rural Counties ◽  
Mitigation Planning

Rural areas of the United States are uniquely vulnerable to the impacts of natural disasters. One possible way to mitigate vulnerability to disasters in rural communities is to have a high-quality hazard mitigation plan in place. To understand the resources available for hazard mitigation planning and determine how well hazard mitigation plans in rural counties meet the needs of vulnerable populations, we surveyed the lead planning or emergency management official responsible for hazard mitigation plans in 96 rural counties in eight states in the Southeastern United States. In most counties, emergency management was responsible for implementing the county’s hazard mitigation plan and the majority of counties had experienced a presidentially declared disaster in the last 5 years. Our research findings demonstrated that there were differences in subjective measures of vulnerability (as reported by survey respondents) and objective measures of vulnerability (as determined by US Census data). In addition, although few counties surveyed included outreach to vulnerable groups as a part of their hazard mitigation planning process, a majority felt that their hazard mitigation plan addressed the needs of vulnerable populations “well” or “very well.” These differences could result in increased vulnerabilities in rural areas, particularlyfor certain vulnerable groups.

Toward multihazard mitigation: An evaluation of FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plans under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000

2011 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oluponmile O. Olonilua, PhD ◽  
Olurominiyi Ibitayo, PhD
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Management ◽  
Special Needs ◽  
Planning Process ◽  
Hazard Mitigation ◽  
Public Information ◽  
Disaster Mitigation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Tribal Governments ◽  
Mitigation Action ◽  
Special Needs Population

This article evaluates the extent to which the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-approved plans submitted by local and tribal governments in response to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K) comply with the requirements of the Act.The DMA2K requires state, local, and tribal governments to develop a FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan to remain eligible for predisaster funding. The specific requirements investigated in this study are collaboration with several identified stakeholders in the planning process and in the mitigation action section of the plans, incorporation of public information and awareness in the mitigation action section, and public participation both in the process of developing the plans and in the mitigation action section of the plans. Other requirements include the incorporation of evacuation and sheltering as elements of multihazard plan, terrorism, technological hazard, and “special needs” population. A total of 202 FEMA-approved hazard mitigation action plans were selected using both stratified and purposive sampling, and the result of the evaluation shows that the extent of compliance by cities and counties in the sampled multijurisdictions with the requirements of DMA2K and FEMA is generally low. For example, more than 70 percent of cities in four of the sampled multijurisdictions did not include evacuation or sheltering in their hazard mitigation action plans.With the exception of provision for special needs population, t-test analyses of all requirements show no significant difference between plans produced by counties and cities. This study provides a policy learning opportunity for policy makers, emergency management officials, and many other stakeholders to make necessary adjustments to the hazard mitigation plans while reviewing and updating approved plans. This is especially true as DMA2K requires that plans must be updated and reviewed after 5 years.

What graduate follow-up studies can tell us

2000 ◽  
Vol 34 (12) ◽  
pp. 976-977 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda H Distlehorst
Keyword(s):  
Follow Up Studies

Beurteilung der Adriamycin-Kardiotoxizität mittels der Äquilibrium-Radionuklid-Ventrikulographie

1987 ◽  
Vol 26 (05) ◽  
pp. 206-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Knesewitsch ◽  
N. H. Göldel ◽  
S. Fritsch ◽  
E. Moser
Keyword(s):  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Peak Filling Rate ◽  
Base System ◽  
Filling Rate ◽  
Time To Peak ◽  
Ejection Rate ◽  
Follow Up Studies ◽  
Pathologic Findings ◽  
Peak Ejection Rate

Results of 606 equilibrium radionuclide ventriculographies (ERNV) performed in 348 non-selected patients receiving Adriamycin (ADM) therapy were stored in a data base system. The aim of the study was to assess the influence of a potential cardiotoxic therapy on left ventricular pump function. Increasing ADM doses yielded a significant (p <0.05) decrease of the resting ejection fraction (R-gEF), the peak ejection rate and the peak filling rate. Enddiastolic and endsystolic volumes increased significantly. Stroke volume, heart rate and time to peak filling rate did not change significantly. 368 follow-up studies were performed in 128 patients: 65/128 patients presented a decrease of R-gEF, but only in 45 of these patients R-gEF values fell into the pathologic range. In 44 of these follow-ups, R-gEF remained unchanged. In 19 patients, a R-gEF increase was observed. At the beginning of ADM therapy 14% of the patients had subnormal R-gEF values. With increasing ADM doses pathologic findings increased to 86% in patients with ADM doses higher than 500 mg/m2.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document