w4
Discuss how you as the Emergency Manager in your community ( Melbourne Florida, Brevard County) can address the needs of vulnerable groups relying on this week’s readings; you may use outside resources. Answer the following questions and include a heading for each one:
1. Who are the vulnerable and why are they vulnerable?
2. Are the number of vulnerable people in society in/decreasing and why?
3. How can you assist the vulnerable before/during/after an emergency or disaster?
Cite your sources in-textand include p. #’s; include a reference section.
Write an approximately 2 pgs. to this discussion question and provide a substantive
Please refer to online lecture notes EMA 305 week 4 1
EMA 305: Principles of Emergency Management
Week 4 Lecture: Risk-Driven Emergency Management
Scope:
This session is focused on the importance of risk measurement in the allocation of resources in
emergency management and the setting of policy and program priorities. The thesis is that
effective risk management will assure that resources are allocated to address the highest
priorities, i.e., to reduce the greatest risks. When priorities are based upon criteria other than
real, measured risk, the potential that policies and programs will fail to prevent or reduce the
impact of disasters increases. The measurement of risk must include probability as well as
potential impact. The session includes exercises and discussions that focus on how risk can be
measured and how it can be used to set priorities. Risk-driven emergency managers utilize
sound risk management principles: hazard identification, risk analysis, and impact analysis.
Priorities and resources are assigned on the basis of this process.
Risk Driven Defined:
Risk-driven refers to the focus of emergency management policies and programs on real,
measured risk. Risk is exposure to the chance of loss; the combination of the probability of an
event and the significance of the consequence (impact) of the event. Therefore, Risk =
Probability x Impact.
Risk in the context of emergency management is the likelihood or probability that there will be
loss of life or property or damage to the environment and the likely size or severity of the impact
or loss. Emergency management priorities, including time and effort, should be determined by
the level of risk posed by a hazard or group of hazards. Emergency managers are responsible for
using available resources effectively and efficiently to manage risk. That means that the setting
of policy and programmatic priorities should be based upon measured levels of risk to lives,
property, and the environment.
The Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) Standards for public emergency
management programs and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1600 Standards for
private sector business continuity and emergency management programs require a focus on risk
in developing emergency mitigation strategies and other emergency plans.
The EMAP Standards (2007) states that The program shall identify the natural and human-
caused hazards that potentially impact the jurisdiction using a broad range of sources. The
program shall assess the risk and vulnerability of people, property, the environment, and the
program/entity operations from these hazards (EMAP Standard 4.3.1).
NFPA 1600 (2007) requires emergency management programs to identify hazards, monitor
those hazards, the likelihood of their occurrence, and the vulnerability of people, property, the
environment, and the entity [program] itself to those hazards (NFPA Standard 5.3).
2
Effective risk management is based upon:
The identification of the natural and man-made hazards that may have significant effect
on the community or organization;
The analysis of those hazards to determine the nature of the risks they pose;
A vulnerability analysis to determine the level of vulnerability to each of those hazards;
and
A risk analysis to determine the potential risks they pose to specific communities,
organizations, and other entities.
Mitigation strategies, emergency operations plans, continuity of operations plans, and pre- and
post-disaster recovery plans should be based upon the specific risks identified and resources
should be allocated appropriately to address those risks.
Communities across the U.S. have very different risks of earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes,
floods, industrial accidents, hazardous materials accidents, terrorism, and other hazards. It is the
responsibility of emergency managers to address the specific risks to their communities and/or
organizations.
Budgets, human resource management decisions, plans, public education programs, training and
exercising, and other efforts necessarily should focus first on the hazards that pose the greatest
risks.
An all-hazards focus will assure that the plans are adaptable to a variety of disaster types and
that, by addressing the hazards that pose the greatest risk to life, property, and the environment,
the community will be better prepared for lesser risks as well.
How do emergency managers address risk?:
Emergency management programs typically address all manner of natural and human caused
risks that are likely to occur in an organization, community, state, or nation.
They must define and measure risk using the most current methodologies. The most common of
these is HAZUS, a hazard identification program sponsored by FEMA. (See HAZUS Website)
Risk analysis involves the determination of the likelihood of an event (probability) and the
consequences of its occurrence (impact) for the purpose of comparing possible risks and making
risk management decisions.
Risk assessment is the combination of vulnerability analysis and risk analysis. The determination
and presentation (usually in quantitative form) of the potential hazards, and the likelihood and
the extent of harm that may result from these hazards.
http://www.fema.gov/hazus/
3
Risk management is the process of intervening to reduce risk the making of public and private
decisions regarding protective policies and actions that reduce the threat to life, property, and the
environment posed by hazards.
Risk communications involves the exchange of information, concerns, perceptions, and
preferences within an organization and between an organization and its external environment,
which ties together the functions of risk assessment and risk management.
Risk-Based Funding and Resource Allocation
In Fiscal Year 2003, the Department of Homeland Security based its funding allocations to the
Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) on risk. Other state and local homeland security
assistance program grants were based upon population or some other statutorily guaranteed
share.
The 9/11 Commission recommended that the grant programs supplement state and local
resources based upon the risks or vulnerabilities that merit additional support (9/11 Commission
Report, 2004: 396). While acknowledging that every state should receive some funding to
support its homeland security programs, the Commission argued that the bulk of funding should
go to those jurisdictions with the greatest risk or vulnerability and specifically mentioned New
York City and Washington, DC.,
Risk factors included in legislation being debated by Congress in 2005 included:
High population or population density, including commuters and tourists,
Target of a prior attack,
International border or coastline,
High risk in terms of critical infrastructure (see list in the exercise below),
Higher threat level than nation as a whole based upon the Homeland Security Advisory
System,
High risk sites or activities in a neighboring jurisdiction,
First responder essential capability shortfalls, and/or
Other threat factors as determined by the DHS Secretary (Reese, 2005: 5-6).
Some legislation included separate allocations to urban areas and to states because urban areas
were judged to be at greater risk of terrorist attack than states as a whole. In recent history, state
4
allocations of funding have tended to go to suburban areas rather than core urban areas because
of the dominant interests in state legislatures and governors offices. The same patterns of
allocations occur in other policy areas, such as economic development, housing, and
transportation.
The Congressional Research Office report suggested three questions that Congress should
consider, the two that relate to risk were:
1. What risk factors might be included in a risk-based funding formula?
2. Who should determine the risk factors?
[The third question dealt with the conceptual difference between a guaranteed base
allocation and a guaranteed minimum allocation and how the difference would affect the
amount of money each state might receive.]
Increasing the use of risk management techniques has been encouraged for decades. Greater use
of risk management in emergency management and Homeland Security has been advocated by
the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Research Service, and the academic
community.
The US Comptroller General convened a forum of experts on risk management on October 25,
2007, for a dialogue on the application of risk management principles in Homeland Security.
The experts came from federal, state and local government, the private sector, and academia
(Rabkin, 2008: 1). The experts identified three challenges to the application of risk management
principles to homeland security:
Improving risk communication
Political obstacles to risk-based resource allocation, and
A lack of strategic thinking about managing homeland security risk (Rabkin, 2008: 2).
Improving risk communication will require educating the public and policymakers about risks
and the need to use a risk management approach to set priorities and allocate resources.
The participants also suggested that a national strategic planning process be established for
homeland security, including more representation from state and local governments and the
private sector. The US Government Accountability Office risk management framework has five
phases:
Setting strategic goals and objectives, and determining constraints;
Assessing risks;
Evaluating alternatives for addressing these risks;
5
Selecting the appropriate alternatives, and
Implementing the alternatives and monitoring the progress made and results achieved
(USGAO, 2008: 3).
Assessing the risks of terrorist events is more challenging because of the lack of historical data.
In many cases, there is considerable data on natural disasters upon which to estimate
probabilities of events occurring and their likely severity.
A risk management approach will help state and local governments and the private sector better
prioritize their efforts and, thus, improve their capabilities to recovery quickly. The nations
critical infrastructure will be more resilient.
Effective public and private sector risk management practices include:
Creating an executive position of chief risk officer to champion risk management within
the organization.
Integrating risk management principles into public sector operations, such as the Port
Authority of New York and New Jerseys practice of using risk assessment to set
priorities for security-related capital investment.
Providing economic incentives to organizations and people to reduce risk, such as
discounted insurance premiums.
Using opportunity analysis, a process to identify and analyze situations to help the
organization position itself to achieve desirable objectives.
Using insurance to minimize losses (a private sector approach).
Using regulations and standards to reduce the probability of losses of life and property
and damage to the environment (a public sector approach) (Rabkin, 2008: 7-8).
Risk communication can be improved by:
Helping the public understand homeland security risks. Sensationalized media
accounts of terrorist incidences, in particular, have focused attention on scenarios that are
not likely to occur.
Educating policymakers by establishing common terminology for risk. Training a new
cadre of risk management professionals.
Developing new risk communication practices to alert the public when an emergency
occurs. The public has to understand the risk and how they should respond. The
National Weather Service has long experience with alert and warning systems.
6
Encouraging public officials to invest in measures that will reduce risk in the long-term,
even though the public may not fully understand the risk (Rabkin, 2008: 9-11).
Strategic thinking can be improved by:
Encouraging agencies to consider trade-offs involved in risk reduction, e.g., whether
investments might better be made to reduce the risk of more probable terrorist attacks or
to better measure the direct and indirect costs of security options.
Developing government-wide risk management guidance to assure more consistent
decision making (Rabkin, 2008: 11-12).
The processes of hazard identification, hazard analysis, and risk assessment:
What is the process of hazard identification?
Hazard identification is the process of identifying all hazards that might potentially cause
losses.
Potential hazards may be identified through historical records, newspapers, interviews
with long-time residents, and other sources. Some high consequence events, such as
volcanic eruptions, may be hundreds of years apart and residents may not be aware of
their potential occurrence.
What is the process of hazard analysis?
Hazard analysis provides information on the nature of the hazard in terms of its potential
impact. Floods, for example, can damage infrastructure such as roads and bridges, as
well as damaging residential and commercial property.
Hazard analyses can help develop mitigation strategies when there are similar
consequences for different kinds of disasters.
What is the process of risk assessment?
Risk assessment is the process of qualitatively or quantitatively determining the
probability of an adverse event and the severity of its impact upon an asset (Rabkin,
2008: 3).
Risk assessment can be an estimation of probabilities and severity. A common approach
to risk assessment is use of the following matrix. The matrix below suggests investments
in reducing risks that are rated A or B first, i.e., those judged to be of higher frequency
and higher damage or consequence.
7
The Emergency Management Standard by EMAP includes the following requirements:
The program shall identify the natural and human-caused hazards that
potentially impact the jurisdiction using a broad range of sources. The program shall
assess the risk and vulnerability of people, property, the environment, and the
program/entity operations from these hazards (Standard 4.31). .
The program shall conduct a consequence analysis for the hazards identified in
4.3.1 to consider the impact on the public; responders; continuity of operations
including continued delivery of services; property, facilities, and, infrastructure; the
environment; the economic condition of the jurisdiction and public confidence in the
jurisdictions governance (Standard 4.3.2).
The jurisdiction shall develop and implement a mitigation program to eliminate
hazards or mitigate the effects of hazards that cannot be reasonably prevented. The
program participates in federal, state/territorial, tribal, and local mitigation programs.
The program identifies ongoing mitigation opportunities and tracks repetitive loss.
The program implements mitigation projects according to a plan that sets priorities
based upon loss reduction. The mitigation process encourages public/private
partnerships (Standard 4.4.1).
The mitigation program provides technical assistance consistent with the scope
of the program such as implementing building codes, fire codes, and land-use
ordinances (Standard 4.4.2)..
The program shall have a process to monitor overall progress of the mitigation
strategies, documenting completed initiatives and quantifying the resulting reduction
or limitation of hazard impact in the jurisdiction (Standard 4.4.3). and
The mitigation plan shall be based on the natural and human-caused hazards
identified by the jurisdiction and the risk and consequences of those hazards. The
mitigation plan for the jurisdiction shall establish interim and long-term strategies,
goals and objectives, programs, and actions to reduce vulnerability to the hazards
identified including a cost- benefit analysis. The plan ranks projects based upon the
greatest opportunity for loss reduction and documents how specific mitigation actions
contribute to overall risk reduction. The plan addresses an education and outreach
strategy(Standard 4.4.4) (EMAP, 2007).
8
The importance of risk-based planning:
Risk-based planning involves using measures of risk to set planning priorities. Risk-based land-
use planning focuses on natural and man-made hazards. Keeping people and property out of
harms way is easier than trying to eliminate hazards. Raymond Burby traces this idea to
President Harry Trumans Water Resources Policy Commission recommendation of a locational
approach to planning. It is easier to keep people away from hazardous areas that flood than to
stop flooding altogether (Burby, 1998).
Risk-based planning is used in floodplain management, including coastal zone management, and
in spot zoning to prevent or limit development in areas prone to landslides and other hazards.
Sustainable land use cannot be achieved for hazardous areas when decision making is
not adequately informed about risk. To make informed choices, local officials and their
constituents must know how many people are subject to injury, how many structures can
be damaged, and how much infrastructure can be lost, as well as the likelihood that such
impacts will occur (Deyle, French, Olshansky, and Paterson, 1998: 120).
Effective hazard assessment requires hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, and risk
analysis. A focus on risk can reduce exposure to hazards and, thereby, reduce losses of life and
property. Risk-based planning is increasingly being used to address social vulnerability, i.e.,
focusing assistance on those who need it most.
Why are emergency management officials focusing more and more on the issue of social
vulnerability? When disasters happen, some segments of social cope better than others and, in
many cases, can find shelter, food, and other necessities with little or no assistance. As the
Katrina disaster and other disasters have demonstrated, some segments of social need much more
help. For example, 47 percent of the people who died as a result of the Katrina disaster were
over 75 years of age. The elderly are more vulnerable than the general population. The elderly
were also most likely not to have cars to evacuate themselves.
The poor in the City of New Orleans when Katrina struck were overwhelmingly elderly,
minority, children, and single=mothers. The poor were most likely not to evacuate and most
likely to rely upon public shelters during the storm. Poverty and other social-economic
conditions affect abilities to prepare for disasters and mitigate their effects, abilities and
willingness to evacuate, capacities to understand and respond to warnings, the need for public
shelter, and other essential skills and abilities.
Because of the problems associated with socio-economic conditions and demographic factors,
researchers have developed indices of social vulnerability and tools, such as computer assisted
mapping, to assist in vulnerability assessment. Vulnerability assessment includes attention to
social factors that limit residents abilities to take care of themselves and to take advantage of
services provided by governmental, nongovernmental, and private assistance.
9
Social vulnerability is increasing as the population increases, more people move to coastal areas
vulnerable to storms, the population gets older, more children are poor, more people suffer from
chronic diseases and conditions such as heart disease and diabetes, there are more single-parent
households, and more people live alone, particularly the elderly (Enarson, 2007: 265).
To address the needs of more vulnerable social groups, emergency management officials may
need to:
Target communications toward specific groups.
Use specialized equipment.
Provide more recovery assistance.
Provide day care and elder care assistance.
Encourage community networking.
Provide translators.
Open special needs shelters.
Provide more mental health assistance.
Provide specialized transportation and more assistance with evacuation.
Train volunteers to deal with special populations (Enarson, 2007: 275)
Addressing risk at the community level:
Risk is a growing issue in local land-use planning, including programs to promote Active
Living and other social goals Risk information is shared between emergency managers and
local planning departments in many communities, often focusing on mitigation planning and
long-term comprehensive land-use planning. A collaborative management style encourages
the sharing of risk information among local officials. Risk information is shared within
communities when they use participative planning processes, e.g., visioning processes.
The use of risk information in land-use decision making is strongly linked to the culture of
the community and local leadership. Too often policymakers, city and county commissions,
approve development despite the risks that it poses to life and property. There is strong
pressure to expand tax bases and local planning commissions often assume that risk is
addressed in local planning department reviews of land-use proposals (Waugh, 2011).
There are common strategies to increase the sharing and use of risk information at the
community level:
10
Document risk a thorough analysis of major hazards (keeping the list short and the
analysis simple) provides the most persuasive argument for managing that risk.
Develop working relationships with other departments and officials with risk reduction
responsibilities, including zoning and building code officials, fire and law enforcement
officials, and public works officials, as well as planning officials.Sell the need to address
risk to chief executive (mayor, city manager, county executive) as a means of reducing
losses of life and property and avoiding legal liability for failing to address known risks
adequately.
Develop a community preparedness program to make the public aware of hazards and
how to reduce the risks that they pose to the community.
Suggest revenue sources to fund risk-reduction (hazard mitigation) particularly if
private sponsorship or donations are possible (Waugh, 2011).
References:
Burby, Raymond J. (1998) Natural Hazards and Land-Use: An Introduction, in
Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-Use Planning for
Sustainable Communities, edited by Raymond J. Burby (Washington, DC: Joseph Henry
Press), pp, 1-26.
Deyle, Robert E.; French, Steven P.; Olshansky, Robert B.; and Paterson, Robert G. (1998)
Hazard Assessment: The Factual Basis for Planning and Mitigation, in Cooperating with
Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-Use Planning for Sustainable
Communities, edited by Raymond J. Burby (Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press), pp, 119-
166.
EMAP (2007) Emergency Management Standard, September. Downloadable from
www.emaponline.org.
Enarson, Elaine (2007) Identifying and Addressing Social Vulnerabilities, in Emergency
Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government, 2nd Editon (Washington, DC:
ICMA), pp. 257-278.]
Rabkin, Norman J. (2008) Testimony before the Subcommittee on Transportation Security
and Infrastructure Protection, Homeland Security Committee, U.S. House of Representatives,
Strengthening the Use of Risk Management Principles in Homeland Security, Washington,
DC: USGAO, GAO-08-904T, June 25.
Reese, Shawn (2005) Risk-Based Funding in Homeland Security Grant Legislation: Analysis
of Issues for the 109th Congress, CRS Report for Congress, RL 33050, August 29.
11
US Government Accountability Office (2008). Catastrophic Disasters: Enhanced
Leadership, Capabilities, and Accountability Controls Will Improve the Effectiveness of the
Nations Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Systems, Washington, DC: USGAO, GAO-
06-618, September 6.
Waugh, William L., Jr., (2011) Risk-Based Planning (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North
Carolina, Center on Natural Disasters, Coastal Infrastructure, and Emergency Management, a
DHS Center of Excellence).
