Search results

This chapter discusses some issues of diversity in hazard mitigation when just recovery is considered or not. Justice in hazard mitigation becomes crucial considering unequal distribution of resources, systemic racism, and social vulnerability to hazards. While there has been research on just recovery, there is little or no evidence of research that examines the issue of equity and justice in hazard mitigation, This chapter discusses what hazard mitigation is, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 focusing on the planning process, public involvement in the planning process, some planning theories on vulnerability, and building the case for achieving and striving for justice and equity in promoting diversity in hazard mitigation. The chapter makes some recommendation on how to achieve diversity in hazard mitigation.

Natural hazards such as floods, wildfires and droughts disrupt communities, their economies and environments, and cost millions every year. The existing literature on hazard mitigation shows that community resilience is best achieved when mitigation strategies are integrated with land use and comprehensive planning. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of hazard mitigation in local comprehensive plans.

The analysis uses a new plan evaluation protocol that integrates flood, wildfire and drought mitigation to evaluate the plans of the six largest and fastest growing counties in Arizona.

The study finds that counties do not plan equally well for all hazards, that they tend to plan better for droughts than wildfires and floods, and indicates the need to improve hazard information in plans to support the adoption of mitigation goals, objectives and strategies.

The research is based on a small sample of comprehensive plans. It focuses on the content of plans rather than the causes that may explain this content or the implementation of the strategies included in the plans. Future research will thus need to analyze larger numbers of plans to identify the determinants of the degree to which comprehensive plans integrate hazard mitigation; and evaluate whether strategies advanced in plans are integrated with other planning documents and implemented.

The paper makes recommendations to improve the plans evaluated and to guide planners as they develop or revise comprehensive plans in other jurisdictions subject to natural hazards.

The key methodological contribution of the paper is the new plan evaluation protocol designed to assess the wildfire, drought and flood mitigation provisions in comprehensive plans.

Emergency management has come to be regarded by many analysts as a critical part of the development of sustainable communities. The emergency management function has been linked to issues such as environmental stewardship and community planning. Especially important is the linkage between hazard mitigation efforts and community planning in the context of building sustainable communities. But this conceptual linkage has been difficult to implement in practice. The resolution of this difficulty and a clarification of the essential linkage of hazard mitigation to community planning will require a broader definition and a reformulation of the emergency management function. It will also require an assessment and the removal of impediments that currently stand in the way of the implementation of this linkage. Practical steps can be taken to begin this important chore.

There is a need to proactively address strategic weaknesses in protecting the built environment from a range of hazards. This paper seeks to focus on the mitigation for flood hazards in the UK; particularly in understanding the extent of the problem, collating key guidance and legislation related to flood hazard mitigation, identifying who the key construction decision makers are and the most opportune stages of the Design‐Construction‐Operation Process when they need to make their key decisions.

A pluralistic research design was adopted for the study, which included a UK‐wide questionnaire survey and a set of semi‐structured interviews involving a range of professionals from construction, planning, insurance, emergency management and local/national government agencies was undertaken.

Despite the publication of a range of guidance on flood hazard mitigation in the UK there is still insufficient evidence that key construction stakeholders are playing an active role in mitigating flood risk. The pre‐construction phase of a building's life cycle is identified as is the most critical stage when key stakeholders need to adopt flood hazard mitigation strategies. The socio‐institutional constraints to the proactive attainment of built‐in resilience are highlighted as are recommendations as to how these constraints can be addressed.

The paper reports on the provisional findings of an ongoing project but these findings nonetheless provide essential foundations for the latter development of the PRE‐EMPT toolkit and also raise some important considerations about flood resilience in the UK.

The findings presented reveal how stakeholders should be better involved, and what issues they need to address, regarding the integration of built‐in resilience into construction decision making.

As the human and financial costs of disasters rise, there are increasing demands for evidence that mitigation “pays”. Until this proof exists, many development organisations remain reluctant to pursue risk reduction as a key objective, or even to protect their own projects against potential hazards.

This paper outlines how such evidence could, in fact, be relatively easily obtained by integrating natural hazard related risks concerns into the design and evaluation of potential projects using standard appraisal and evaluation tools. It shows that there is nothing intrinsically difficult about either appraising risks or monitoring and evaluating the impact of related mitigation measures as part of these broader analyses - if this task is approached thoughtfully and knowledgeably, and adequately resourced.

Provision of appropriate methodological tools is not sufficient in itself, however, to secure improvements in the management of risk. The paper identifies a series of further critical factors that need to be addressed in order to secure long-term commitment to risk reduction, as reflected in the broad policies, objectives and priorities of both governments and development organisations, and actual practice on the ground. In particular, development organisations and governments need to accept greater accountability for disaster-related losses.

The paper is based on the findings of an ongoing ProVention Consortium project, 'Measuring Mitigation': Methodologies for Assessing Natural Hazard Risks and the Net Benefits of Mitigation.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the key challenges facing non‐governmental organisations (NGOs) during decision making in post disaster housing reconstruction.

An extensive literature review was undertaken to establish the key challenges facing disaster management practitioners. Following this review, practitioners from leading NGOs were asked to discuss their experiences of post disaster housing reconstruction including the issues of hazard risk and appropriate mitigation including increasing vulnerability due to climate change, end‐users and stakeholder consultation in planning and design, technological solutions, and constructing the build; as these were identified in the literature as the principal challenges being faced by practitioners in the pursuit of sustainable construction.

The research results presented in this paper provide clear insights into the decision‐making practices of these NGOs and establish where improvements need to be made. The results also establish that knowledge management activities need to be more focused to ensure that lessons learnt previously are implemented elsewhere; critical in hazard mitigation and meeting the challenges of increased vulnerability due to climate change.

The paper includes recommendations for improved knowledge transfer and dissemination of “lessons learnt” in order to capture knowledge gained on projects. Future research will build on this through a detailed examination of the project management process applied to recently completed case studies. Key intervention points in the life cycle of projects will be identified and anticipated knowledge requirements for each stage mapped.

Interviews with practitioners reporting first hand on the challenges they face in the field. Useful for those supporting practitioners through research and development as well as donor organisations as it has been revealed that a lot of issues arise as a result of the way projects are funded.

Recently, frequent occurrence of fire incidences in various building types with devastating effects on human settlements have proliferated and have become of serious concern to Nigeria’s economy. Hence, there is a need to proactively address strategic weaknesses in measures directed at protecting the built environment (BE). The purpose of this paper is to examine stakeholders’ role in the frameworks on disaster risk reduction (DRR) in the context of fire hazards within Lagos metropolis. Analysis is based on findings of research carried out on vulnerability, resilience assessment and guiding principles from three recent frameworks.

Mixed research design was adopted using questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. In all, 165 BE professionals in the construction industry, state/federal emergency management and local/national government agencies were randomly selected.

Findings show that stakeholders believe prevention, preparedness and mitigation of disasters are the most important; however, BE professionals in the construction industry do not play active roles in the mitigation of fire risk despite wide publications on guidance for fire hazard mitigation. These stakeholders urgently need to adopt fire hazard mitigation strategies, especially in the pre-construction phase of a building’s life cycle which is identified as the most critical stage in the construction phase.

The paper looked at fire occurrence in Lagos from the perspective of the BE with the view to fill knowledge gaps for adopting fire hazard mitigation strategies.

The findings brought to bear the need for stakeholders, especially BE professionals in the construction industry, to be better involved in DRR as regards fire occurrences.