CHAPTER 4

Mitigation
Mitigation Goals

When considering the mitigation options suitable for treating a hazard risk,
several general goals classify the outcome that disaster managers may seek: risk
likelihood reduction, risk consequences reduction, risk avoidance, risk
acceptance, and risk transfer, sharing, or spreading.
Risk Likelihood Reduction

 It is possible to reduce the chance that many hazards will manifest themselves. For these
hazards, risk is reduced through a reduction in likelihood. . For some hazards, such as
hurricanes, intervention obviously is not yet technically possible (despite many attempts
to prove the contrary, including the proposal to detonate a nuclear device in a hurricane’s
eye). Other hazards, such as river flooding, have several mitigation options available to
disaster managers, including dikes, levees, and buyouts (see the following sections), each
with associated benefits and secondary risks.
Risk Consequences Reduction

 The second primary goal that disaster managers seek through

mitigation is a reduction in the impact of a hazard to humans,
structures, the environment, or any combination of these.
Mitigation measures that address consequences assume that a
hazard will occur with an associated intensity or magnitude, and
they ensure that the protected structure, population, system, or
other subject is able to withstand such an event without negative
consequences.
Risk Avoidance

 Some hazard risks are so great that even with a partial reduction in either their likelihood
or consequence, the outcome is still unacceptable. Civilizations have tended to avoid such
high-risk areas as is evident by the historical lack of development in harsh or dangerous
climates such as the Antarctic continent.
 Risk avoidance may be possible for other hazards for which risk is not so all-
encompassing and can be mapped within regions. For example, buyout programs seek to
physically remove all structures within a floodplain and then restrict all future
construction in that reclaimed area.
Risk Acceptance

 For certain hazards, disaster managers, as well as societies and individuals, consider a
certain risk to be acceptable “as is.” It may be determined that any further reduction in
risk is either too expensive or unnecessary. Several reasons might lead to this decision.
 Certain risks, shown by their cost-benefit analyses, are better left untreated so that
funding that would have been dedicated to that treatment may be applied to other hazards
for which risk reduction will have greater value.
Regulatory Measures

 Regulatory measures limit hazard risk by legally dictating human actions. Regulations can
be applied to several facets of societal and individual life, and are used when it is
determined that such action is required for the common good of the society
 Examples of regulatory mitigation measures include:

 l Land use management (zoning). This is a legally imposed restriction on how land may
be used. It may apply to specific geographic designations, such as coastal zone
management, hillside or slope management, floodplain development restrictions, or
microclimatic siting of structures (such as placing structures only on the leeward side of a
hill).
Community Awareness and Education Programs

 The public is most able to protect itself from the effects of a hazard if it is first informed
that the hazard exists, and then educated about what it can do to limit its risk.
 l Awareness of the hazard risk l Behavior modification
 • Predisaster risk reduction behavior
 • Predisaster preparedness behavior
 • Postdisaster response behavior
 • Postdisaster recovery behavior l Warning
Map detailing the likelihood of fire determined by activities and
presence of causative agents. (From Alberta Sustainable Resource
Development
Nonstructural Physical Modifications

 Several different mitigation options, while not structural in nature, involve a physical
modification to a structure or to property that results in reduced risk.
 Examples include:
 l Securing of furniture, pictures, and appliances, and installing latches on cupboards. In
many earthquakes, the majority of injuries are caused by falling furniture and other
unsecured belongings. Economic costs also can be reduced significantly through this very
inexpensive, simple measure that generally requires little more than connecting items to
walls through the use of a specially designed thin metal strap.
Environmental Control

 Structural mitigation involves engineered structures that control hazards. It is also possible to control or influence hazards
through nonengineered structural means. These nonstructural mechanisms tend to be highly hazard specific, and include:
 l Explosive detonation to relieve seismic pressure (earthquakes)
 l Launched or placed explosives to release stored snow cover (avalanches) l Cloud seeding (hail, hurricanes, drought, snow)
 l Chemical surface treatment (ice and snowstorms)
 l Controlled burns (wildfires)
 l Bombing of volcano flows (volcanic eruption)
 l Dune and beach restoration or preservation (storm surges, tsunamis, erosion)
 l Forest and vegetation management (landslides, mudflows, flooding, erosion)
 l Riverine and reservoir sediment and erosion control (flooding)
 l Removal and replacement of soils (expansive soils) l Hillside drainage (landslides, mudslides, erosion)
 l Slope grading (landslides, mudslides, rockfalls, erosion)
 l Disease vector eradication (epidemics; see Figure 4–9 and Exhibit 4–3)
Behavioral Modification

 Through collective action, a community can alter the behavior of individuals; resulting in
some common risk reduction benefit
 l Rationing. Rationing is often performed prior to and during periods of drought. Because
it can be very difficult for governments to limit vital services such as water to citizens, it
is up to citizens to limit their individual usage.
 Environmental conservation. Many practices, in both urban and rural areas, are very
destructive to the environment. Once the environmental feature—a body of water, a
forest, or a hillside—is destroyed, secondary hazardous consequences may appear that
could have been avoided.
Incidence of dengue fever (in red) showing 1970 levels during a mosquito
eradication campaign, and 2010 levels, decades after the eradication campaign was
stopped. (From U.S. CDC, 2005) (For interpretation of the references to color in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this chapter.)
Risk Transfer, Sharing, and Spreading

 Risk transfer, sharing, and spreading are often considered mitigation measures, although
they do absolutely nothing to reduce actual disaster consequences or reduce hazard
likelihood. The concept behind these measures is that the financial disaster consequences
that do occur are shared by a large group of people, rather than the entire burden falling
only on the affected individuals. The result is a calculated average consequence cost, such
as an insurance premium.
 The company then divides that cost, adding its administrative costs, across all
policyholders.
: FINDINGS OF THE PROVENTION CONSORTIUM INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE ON THE POTENTIAL OF INSURANCE FOR DISASTER RISK
MANAGEMENT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: CHALLENGES

 Lack of information needed for underwriting.

 Many developing countries lack the data and information needed for sound
underwriting and product development.
 Lack of local insurance expertise.
 In countries where insurance is not common, there is often a distinct lack of local
expertise, ranging from actuarial science, underwriting, and risk assessment to
claims management and client support.
 Lack of awareness and understanding of insurance.
 It takes time to develop awareness among potential clients about the benefits and
costs of insurance, whether the clients are national or local governments,
community groups, or low-income individuals
 High opportunity cost of premiums for the poor.
 . It is often asked if insurance is truly a viable option for the very poor, because
premiums are not productive (unless a claim is made), and other needs may be
more pressing. Paying premiums will generally not be a priority for a poor
household if doing so would require foregoing essentials.
Worldwide insurance coverage. (From Munich Re, 2004)
Several methods have been adopted to address the problems associated with
adverse selection. Examples include:

 l The inclusion of these disasters in basic/comprehensive homeowners and renters

policies, regardless of exposure or vulnerability. This spreads out the risk across the entire
population of policyholders in the country, regardless of differential risk between
individuals. Additionally, controls are placed upon the minimum spatial zones within
which each company can provide policies to ensure that the ratio of policies affected by a
disaster to those unaffected are kept as low as possible
 l The introduction of government backing on insurance coverage of catastrophic events.
In this scenario, the insurers are liable for paying for damages up to an established point,
beyond which the government supplements the payments. Terrorism insurance, as
discussed later in this section, is an example of government backing on insurance
coverage of catastrophic events.
 l Heavier reliance on international reinsurance companies. Buying reinsurance can spread
the local risk to wider areas of coverage, reducing the chance that annual claims exceed
collected premiums. Unfortunately, many companies are unable to purchase all the
reinsurance they would like to have. Additionally, because many of these policies require
the insurers to pay a percentage of total claims placed, the amount they ultimately pay in
catastrophic disasters can be massive despite reinsurance coverage.
Several advantages gained through the use of insurance have been identified,
including:

1. Victims are guaranteed a secure and predictable amount of compensation for their losses. With this
coverage, they do not have to rely on disaster relief, and reliance on government assistance is reduced as
well.
2. Insurance allows for losses to be distributed in an equitable fashion, protecting many for only a fraction
of the cost each would have incurred individually if exposed to hazards. This can help the economy
overall by reducing bankruptcies, reducing reliance on federal government assistance, and increasing the
security of small businesses and individuals, often the most severely affected victims of disaster.
3. Insurance can actually reduce hazard impact by encouraging policyholders to adopt certain required
mitigation measures. As policyholders reduce their vulnerability to risk, their premiums fall. The owners
of automobiles that have airbags, antitheft devices, and passive restraint devices, for instance, will receive
a discount on their premiums. Homeowners who develop outside of the floodplain or who install fire
suppression systems will also receive these benefits. Additionally, this gives financial/economic
disincentives for people or businesses to build in areas that are exposed to hazards.
Risk-Sharing Pools

 A public entity that is considering purchasing traditional insurance may also consider public risk-sharing pools. These are
associations of public entities with similar functions that have banded together to share risks by creating their own
insurance vehicles. Pools sometimes structure themselves or their programs as group insurance purchase arrangements,
through which individual members benefit from the group’s collective purchasing power. Members pay premiums, which
(1) fund the administrative costs of operating the pool, including claims management expenses and (2) pay members’
covered losses. Pools can provide significant advantages to their members. For example, they offer insurance that is specific
to public entities at premiums that are generally stable and affordable. Many pools also offer additional benefits and
services at little or no extra charge, including advice on safety and risk management; seminars on loss control; updates on
changes in the insurance industry; and property appraisal and inspection. Some pools offer members the opportunity to
receive dividends for maintaining a good loss record. Some membership organizations for public entities sponsor pools or
endorse insurance products that are then marketed to their members. However, sponsorship or endorsement by a
membership organization does not guarantee that the insurance is broad enough to meet the needs of a given entity or that
the insurance provider is financially stable. A public entity must apply the same due diligence to a consideration of these
programs that it would apply to a comparison of available commercial insurance programs. (Reiss, 2001)
Obstacles to Mitigation

 Mitigation is not yet practiced to its fullest extent. The potential exists to reduce hazard risk throughout the world
through the various mitigation measures discussed in the previous sections, but formidable obstacles stand in the
way. The first and primary obstacle is cost. Mitigation projects can be very expensive. Although governments
may have the resources to carry out even very costly mitigation projects, they choose not to in favor of spending
money on programs that are perceived to be more pressing. The reality is that governments maintain limited funds
to support development, and many consider hazards to be chance events that might not occur. When drafting their
budgets, they therefore tend to favor programs requiring regular funding, such as military, educational, economic,
or infrastructure projects. The second obstacle is low levels of political support or “buy-in.” It is important for
politicians to maintain their high public standing, so they tend to prefer projects that increase their stature over
risky endeavors that may not offer a return in the short run. Mitigation, which is often conducted during periods
where no imminent threat exists and which may require some level of sacrifice or hardship, may be hard to “sell”
to the local politicians. Convincing the local decision-making authority of the need to undertake a mitigation
measure is crucial to getting the project off the ground.
Assessing and Selecting Mitigation Options

 l The expected impact that each risk mitigation option will have on reducing the identified
hazard risks and vulnerabilities
 The probability that each action will be implemented
 Mechanisms for funding and leveraging of resources necessary to implement each option
Impact of Risk Mitigation Options on
Community Risk Reduction

The most critical issue in assessing a risk mitigation option is determining its impact on
reducing the identified risk or vulnerability in the community. Several factors must be
considered when assessing the risk reduction to be accomplished through individual
mitigation options or groups of mitigation options. These factors, each of which is analyzed
according to the six categories of mitigation listed earlier, include:
 Reduced number of deaths and injuries
 Reduced property damage
 Reduced economic loss
The STAPLEE Method of Assessing
Mitigation Options

 There are many methods by which the hazards risk management team can assess the mitigation options that they
have generated for each identified hazard risk. One method, or framework as it is often called, that has been
developed by FEMA is the STAPLEE method. STAPLEE guides the disaster managers in their assessment by
utilizing a systematic approach for addressing options. The term “STAPLEE” is an acronym that stands for the
following evaluation criteria:
 Social
 Technical
 Administrative
 Political
 Legal
 Economic
 Environmental
 Emergency Response Capacity as a Risk
Mitigation Measure

 To be truly effective, emergency capabilities must be tailored to the risks of the

community. Even though they are primarily designed to handle the routine
emergencies experienced by the community, the region, or the country, these
resources can be developed to manage large-scale events as well.
Incorporating Mitigation into Development
and Relief Projects

 Mitigation is costly, and for this reason its incorporation may be

resisted. However, through education, regulation, and enforcement,
it is easy to teach these officials that it may not be worth spending
the money on the project in the first place if there is little chance
the structure or system is unlikely to survive a disaster in the near
or even distant future.