Reference no: EM131589172

Question Response to the following discussions(X4) with approximately 150 words or more each. Include a reference to each response. Be thoughtful and insightful and it must demonstrate critical thinking and analysis. Thank You

1. When we discuss emergency management mitigation, we're defining activities that are intended to reduce the impacts of the disaster, such as improving construction codes to improve safety during earthquakes or engineering levees by high waters to avert floods. Although commonly neglected as one of the four phases of a disaster, proper mitigation efforts not only save economies, they save lives. The two main categories of types of mitigation efforts are broken down into "structural" and "non-structural." The first type includes, "physical changes to the built environment that lessen disaster impacts" (Phillips, Neal, & Webb, 2012, p. 328). By comparison, non-structural efforts focus on human behavior and the changes that occur during and after a disaster.

Here in Beavercreek, Ohio, the Greene Country Natural Emergency Mitigation Planning Team developed an in-depth hazard mitigation plan in 2015 aimed to reduce risk to life and property damage and loss. The catalyst behind the plan was the effects of the 2008 windstorm that resulted from Tropical Depression Ike, named "Dry Ike." Specific hazards and results from the storm included, "consistent winds of 55 mph with gusts 75 mph caused a widespread power outages and downed trees which resulted in power outages that lasted for several weeks" (2015 Greene County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2015, p. 4). When combined with the other 32 counties affected by the storm, it totaled $53 million in damages.

The mitigation plan started by looking into historical data to identify the types of hazards that have affected Greene County in the past, making it susceptible. The list included: tornadoes and wind; severe winter storms; flood; sever summer heat and drought; hail; and earthquakes. Not enough evidence was found to include wildfires and landslides. Several goals were developed to aid in mitigation efforts for these disasters. Goal 1 was to increase public awareness (i.e. changing human behavior). Some action items developed include, "Develop and distribute information about risks associated with the identified natural disasters affecting the County" and "Develop and launch awareness/educational campaigns to increase knowledge of weather alert methods (alert radios, e-mail, cell phones, etc.)" (2015 Greene County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2015, p. 91). Goal 2 discusses protecting life and property (i.e. the built environment). This initiative is pushing for the state of Ohio to enhance wind/impact resistant Ohio Basic Building Codes and encourage regular inspections of bridges and dams.

2. Mitigation is often looked past because it's not the most "exciting" phase out of the four phases (Phillips, 2012, 328). But to some people it is the most important. In terms of mitigation, it basically involves the well-being of the community and protects the safety, financial security and self-reliance of the community (FEMA, 2013). Mitigation is divided into two categories; structured that consists on the built environment and the non-structural that consists of what actions to take to reduce the impacts of a disaster (Phillips, 2012).

I used to live in a valley where we got a terrible flood from the aftermath of hurricane sandy. Our whole community had flooded and no one was prepared for it. Many of my friends homes were destroyed and some of them had to get knocked down because there was no saving it. Even where my mother worked flooded to the point where they had to knock that down as well. My mom works at BAE Systems and that is not a small company so trying to relocate everyone was hard, especially because all the computers, files and everything were still in the building. Basically, everyone in the community was stuck at a shelter or at home because we were in state of emergency and all the roads were flooded out. When the water started to go away, they let people into my moms work and allowed them to get some of their stuff but quickly because the building wasn't safe anymore. Almost a year later the company had found a building for all of their employees to work at. This is an example of non-structural relocation. Many years ago, before the most recent flood, we were flooded pretty bad. One of my good friends lives in an area where they constantly get water in their house. This causes her family to prepare and actually make a barricade to ensure no water could get upstairs. The way her house is set up is you walk in the front door and you can either go up or down the stairs. So they made some sort of barricade to block off the downstairs. This is an example of planned environment structural mitigation.

3. Very interesting chapter in our reading this week. I learned howf hazard mitigation and the benefits, or lack of, have had on many areas in the world. Fascinating reading about Frank Reddish, the late Miami-Dade mitigation manager that had the foresight to convince his community the importance of hazard mitigation efforts. Frank understood that "$1 spent on hazard mitigation produces at least $4 in benefits" and completed "hundreds of millions of dollars in mitigation projects, from major public works to shutters for seniors' homes". What an amazing man whose vision saved property damage and probably lives as well when Hurricane Wilman struck Miami in 2005. Nothing that Frank had mitigated was damaged. Quite an amazing feat. Interesting to read about the former FEMA director James Witt and his expertise that led to the promotion of disaster mitigation during the Clinton years. What concerns me is the monetary problems that mitigation instills in our leadership. Current administration seems likely to not be concerned with the future and how to mitigate possible damage occurring with a disaster, but rather dealing with the ramifications after the event. Kenneth

4. Mitigation planning, like many other aspects of emergency management, is a process that requires flexibility and creativity. Since each community has varying degrees of uniqueness, and the hazards faced may be unique in nature, a one-size-fits-all approach will only be successful to a limited extent. FEMA breaks down mitigation planning into four steps: organize resources, assess risks, develop a mitigation plan, and implement the plan (Phillips, Neal, & Webb, 2012). No step is a stand-alone item and it will often be necessary to circle back to previous steps, or revisit them to reinforce or modify the actions already taken.

Organizing resources includes identifying the need for mitigation efforts and communicating them to those who could be affected. Communications are an ongoing process in which support is gained and the value is explained through presentation of a cost to benefit analysis. Individuals from all walks of life must be included and reassured that consideration will be taken for any special needs.

The second stage is to assess risks. Hazards may be unique to certain areas within a community, and various communities will not necessarily be susceptible to the same threats. Consideration is given to the effects to individuals as well as to business and government functions, such as schools, medical care facilities, and religious centers. A return to normalcy is a measure of the effectiveness of a disaster response plan, and mitigation efforts help expedite restoration. Estimating the cost of damages without the mitigation efforts versus with them and communicating that to those affected will help maintain continued support.

Developing a mitigation plan includes defining appropriate actions to take as well as setting priorities and working to obtain funding. Grants and other government funding may offset local costs and provide for those who have special needs or lack the means for mitigation expenses and only have minimal requirements to obtain (Frazier, Walker, Kumari, & Thompson, 2013). Prioritization ensures that those at greatest risk are addressed first, and follow-up actions reinforce steps already taken to maximize effectiveness.

The final step is implementing the plan. Efforts to secure additional needed funding continue while communications with those who will reap the benefits of the mitigation plan ensure continued support. Sharing the long term vision of the mitigation plan is needed since those affected may not have previously experienced an event, and may lose sight of the need to minimize damage from a disaster that may not occur until months or years in the future.

Flexibility and dedication will be key in the mitigation process. Individuals must remain diligent and not give up when resistance is met.

Explaining data gathered and arguing for the need for mitigation measures in creative and multifaceted ways will help to overcome obstacles that will inevitably be encountered. Mitigation plans will need to evolve as conditions and costs change, perhaps requiring planners to circle back to previous steps, and continue communication efforts throughout the process.